• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:54 am

Let's all stop and think for a minute rather than posting kneejerk reactions.

Getting the doors open could potentially be the worst thing to do under the circumstances. Do you want to go down the slide right into a burning nightmare? Fire crews can be there inside 2 minutes and you also don't want to be on the runway whilst they are charging towards the incident. Remember the Asiana accident?

Fuselages are tested for resistance to burn through. Sitting inside a metal vessel isolated from the wing fire is the best place as there's no burning oil or toxic smoke about. Let the fire crews do their job unimpeded by passengers. A stampede is the very last thing anyone wants.

The damage looks like it's mostly composite panels anyway. Lots of non-loadbearing parts of the 777 are made from it to save weight. As the fire seems to be fairly limited rather than catastrophic I wouldn't think a full tank has ruptured; more likely the engine fire blew out a fuel line or two and that fed the fire.
 
SASDC8
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:01 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:14 am

There is a video which shows that the fire was on both sides of the Aircraft, and in that case it would not be safe to evacuate passengers into a sea og buring fuel. I think the crew did the right thing, in letting the fire brigade to their job first and safely remove the passengers afterwards with staris instead of slides. For some reason I can`t post a link to the other video.
2-3-2 is NOT a premium configuration
 
etops1
Posts: 850
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:26 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:20 am

Why was there no evacuation ? I just simply don't understand this . How can someone record the fire from inside the cabin all the way until was extinguished and not be instructed to evacuate ? This is a very valid question . I guess being a fa we are told if we see a fire we get out . I am sure there were reasons as to why this was handled this way but it's a little concerning for my taste .
 
User avatar
blackbox67
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:13 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:42 am

9V-SWB was airborne for 3 h when they returned after an engine oil issue.

http://www.jacdec.de/2016/06/27/2016-06 ... re-changi/

Image
 
toptravel
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:36 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:53 am

That's an awful lot of gas in that aircraft, I agree get everyone off ASAP before before it turns into a fire ball. They were extremely lucky in my book.
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:06 am

SASDC8 wrote:
There is a video which shows that the fire was on both sides of the Aircraft, and in that case it would not be safe to evacuate passengers into a sea og buring fuel. I think the crew did the right thing, in letting the fire brigade to their job first and safely remove the passengers afterwards with staris instead of slides. For some reason I can`t post a link to the other video.


No fire on the left hand side
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:08 am

Channex757 wrote:
Let's all stop and think for a minute rather than posting kneejerk reactions.

Getting the doors open could potentially be the worst thing to do under the circumstances. Do you want to go down the slide right into a burning nightmare? Fire crews can be there inside 2 minutes and you also don't want to be on the runway whilst they are charging towards the incident. Remember the Asiana accident?

Fuselages are tested for resistance to burn through. Sitting inside a metal vessel isolated from the wing fire is the best place as there's no burning oil or toxic smoke about. Let the fire crews do their job unimpeded by passengers. A stampede is the very last thing anyone wants.

The damage looks like it's mostly composite panels anyway. Lots of non-loadbearing parts of the 777 are made from it to save weight. As the fire seems to be fairly limited rather than catastrophic I wouldn't think a full tank has ruptured; more likely the engine fire blew out a fuel line or two and that fed the fire.


Please refer to the footage of China Airline's 737-800 accident in OKA to check how fast a fuselages can burn
 
CaptainKramer
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:24 am

Hi sierrakilo44 .

My post wasn't about prioritizing the sources the Captain and First Officer would draw upon to decide whether to evacuate or not.

I was stating what they were able to call upon on the Flight Deck of a B777ER, in this case a real time picture of part of the wings and engines from the tail mounted camera providing a better picture without the need to leave the Flight Deck. I never stated it was the only picture. As you stated the Flight Attendants main priority is the passengers safety and relaying information to the Flight Deck on Cabin status (and serve food and drinks on a flight with no safety issue!).

Ultimately I was responding to some replies, implying the Flight Deck was completely in the dark regarding the severity of the fire . I just pointed out the availability of the tail mounted camera displayed on EICAS, helped build up a better picture of what was going on outside. The decision however to evacuate, I believe, still resides with the most Senior Officer still capable of making that decision, in this case the Captain. Of course the side on which the passengers evacuate safely, remains the responsibility of the Flight Attendants.

Cheers Frank
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:58 am

Channex757 wrote:
Let's all stop and think for a minute rather than posting kneejerk reactions.

Getting the doors open could potentially be the worst thing to do under the circumstances. Do you want to go down the slide right into a burning nightmare? Fire crews can be there inside 2 minutes and you also don't want to be on the runway whilst they are charging towards the incident. Remember the Asiana accident?

Fuselages are tested for resistance to burn through. Sitting inside a metal vessel isolated from the wing fire is the best place as there's no burning oil or toxic smoke about. Let the fire crews do their job unimpeded by passengers. A stampede is the very last thing anyone wants.


Agreed.

Remember why the Captain of QF32 (also landed at SIN) chose not to evacuate:

""But they were not out of danger – 3 tonnes of fuel poured onto the tarmac, pooling around white-hot brakes. The fire crew held back because the outboard engine on the damaged wing would not shut down. Eventually foam was sprayed all over the fuel and Captain de Crespigny decided that the passengers were safer on board than executing an emergency evacuation. Eventually the outboard engine was stopped and everyone walked away safely.""

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-air ... bus-hughes

Whilst different situations with the engines and fire, kudos to the crew in this instance for remaining calm and not placing the passengers in unknown harms way outside of the aircraft. Perhaps an evacuation would have been 100% successful, then again, perhaps not. We don't know. What we do know is the decision to keep the pax on board in this instance worked out. If the Captain decided it was safer for the pax to remain on board and the outcome was 100% successful regarding the pax then kudos to the crew.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
factsonly
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:08 am

a36001 wrote:

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


The safety investigation by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore CAAS and SQ will no doubt focus on the role of the cabin crew in this particular 'serious' incident.

If this ground fire had happened on a USA or European carrier, my feeling is that the cabin crew would have used their authority and initiated an immediate evacuation by themselves using the 'safe' side and the 'safe' exists. That is what they are trained to do, that is what is expected of them in case of a fire outside. Very much in line with what we have seen on the BA 777 at Las Vegas last year.

To me, it is very disturbing indeed to hear passengers happily chatting away in their seats while a fire is spreading along a wing full of fuel outside their window, without any intent to move away from this highly dangerous situation. I don't hear any COMMANDS by the Cabin Crew for passengers to either STAY SEATED or for pax to move to the FRONT of the BACK of the aircraft. In fact I hear no Cabin Crew instructions at all. That is worrying, for who is in control of passenger safety during this very obvious 'safety' situation.

I am sorry to say this, but this incident may prove - yet again - that culture and particularly the role of 'authority' and 'command' in some cultures, are not conducive to aviation safety. SQ must be very happy that no injuries were sustained among its passengers, and their may well be a perfectly plausible explanation for the cabin crew NOT to act at a time of serious danger. I look forward to the safety report of this incident and particularly the actions of mid-ship cabin crew. I would expect some people in SQ's Safety Department to be somewhat concerned about proceedings in this event and somewhat nervous about the possible conclusions of the safety investigation.
 
packersfan
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:32 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:23 am

There is NO possible way that anybody on this forum could give me any good reason to remain on that aircraft and deplane leisurely by the stairs. As far as I am concerned the cabin crew were negligent in their duties. Cabin crew are not infallible and I believe this instance proves it. I would have heaved the nearest left side exit door and slid right out of there. Probably would have spent the night in jail for my troubles.
 
User avatar
helmat
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:27 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:25 am

I'd say no one hurt - well done!
The aircraft was returning due to an engine issue, the fire brigade most likely already on standby, maybe even awaiting the aircraft on the taxiway. The fire ignites, the fire crews will be here in no time and go into full force (apart from the lone man with the extinguisher, it took over 3minutes for the fire crews to arrive at the China Airlines 737!).
Captain orders the evac checklist and starts to make his decision, FO finishes the list (that would take about 30sec if done properly) - evac call only thing to do and all get out. In the meantime PIC talks to the fire chief and is told that the fire is under full control and will be extinguished within the next few minutes with no immediate danger to the aircraft - why still take the risk and evacuate?

Sure cabin crew can start an evacuation, but they are told (at least at my airline) only to do that when the aircraft is broken up and there are no more means to talk to the flight crew. They usually don't have all the information available necessary to take such a big decision, the flight crew usually has. If there's time available (and there was in this case) the captain will call the cabin, get input from their side and then decide what to do with the big picture in mind. There's a reason we are being pounded with these decision making processes every six month in the sim.
 
AusA380
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:38 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:31 am

With this discussion I keep coming back to QF32 - lots more fuel and they kept the Pax on the aircraft of > 1hour if I recall correctly, issues around fuel on the ground (pouring out), engine not shutting down and very hot brakes.

I found it odd at the time, but I don't believe there were any concerns raised in the investigation report on that strategy (happy to be corrected).

The crew are working out the safest place for pax to be, and it seems illogical, but it seems sometimes staying on board is the best.

Let's see what the investigation has to say (or the books!)
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4306
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:32 am

hongkongflyer wrote:

If I was one of the passangers and saw such a burning wing, I will rush to the exit, deploy the slide (on the left hand side) and escape via the slide if FA was not deploying the slide once the plane has came to complete stop.


Absolutely. Bye Felicia!
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
BAeRJ100
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:49 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:04 am

helmat wrote:
Sure cabin crew can start an evacuation, but they are told (at least at my airline) only to do that when the aircraft is broken up and there are no more means to talk to the flight crew.


That's your airline. At my airline, we are also told to initiate if the aircraft's occupants are in immediate danger. Seeing the wing - full of fuel - on fire, I would most certainly take this as being in immediate danger.
B737/738/739/744ER/752/753/763/77L/77W/788/789
A223/320/321/332/333/346/359/388
MD82/MD88/717/F100/RJ85/RJ100/146-100/200/300
E175/190/CRJ700/900
 
jrfspa320
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:18 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:05 am

The Qantas incident was very different, no wing or engine fire

More similar to the BA incident at LAS where they evacuated
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:47 am

packersfan wrote:
I would have heaved the nearest left side exit door and slid right out of there. Probably would have spent the night in jail for my troubles.

You sound like one of those peasant first time air passengers from China that we are hearing about so often. Opening aircraft doors at the slightest or no reason. Only difference is (I believe) you won't try to do it in flight. You won't be that stupid. That much I will credit your mind. ;)
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
kalvado
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:04 pm

neutrino wrote:
packersfan wrote:
I would have heaved the nearest left side exit door and slid right out of there. Probably would have spent the night in jail for my troubles.

You sound like one of those peasant first time air passengers from China that we are hearing about so often. Opening aircraft doors at the slightest or no reason. Only difference is (I believe) you won't try to do it in flight. You won't be that stupid. That much I will credit your mind. ;)

Well, engine fire is definitely a non-event, and I don't understand why they had to use stairs on a runway!
Taxi to the gate, apply some duck tape, and ready for take off.

I am not saying crew didn't have reasons to do what they did.. But sometimes people stay out of trouble despite their actions, not because of their actions.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13995
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:11 pm

packersfan wrote:
There is NO possible way that anybody on this forum could give me any good reason to remain on that aircraft and deplane leisurely by the stairs.


Emergency evacuations always result in injuries, using the stairs no-one was injured. While there was fire outside the aircraft, nothing I have seen suggests that there was smoke in the cabin or the cabin was compromised. The fuselage protected the passengers, and the RFF quickly took the external threat away.

The cabin crew would have been on standby to evacuate at the doors ready to go if the RFF was not effective. I know it is difficult to understand for many outside of the industry but sometimes the best thing anyone can do in an emergency is to sit on your hands an wait. Do not have the impression they were doing noting at all, CRM training would have the cabin reporting to the cockpit what is happening, RFF also can talk to the aircraft directly.

Preventing injury is a very valid reason in my book.

The crew also may have had some information that we just dont know at the moment, the way this has spread I find very odd and has made me thinking about the cause of this behaviour. We know the aircraft turned around on a long haul flight, was this caused by crew actions like fuel jettison still open on landing ? or a problem with the cross-feed ? I dont know, but this may have contributed to the decision making process.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21562
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:18 pm

Channex757 wrote:
Do you want to go down the slide right into a burning nightmare?


Multiple images show no fire anywhere on the left-hand side of the aircraft.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
apfpilot
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:19 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:43 pm

sierrakilo44 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!! :shock:


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.



I think you might be confusing what SIA meant when they said "Jet Fuel in itself isn't explosive..." This is somewhat true, at ambient temperature and pressure Jet-A doesn't ignite like normal Petrol would. In fact when I used to work on the ramp as a way of "hazing" the new hires we used to put out our cigarettes by tossing them into a bucket of freshly sampled Jet-A. In order for Jet-A to ignite it has to be heated and/or pressure increased, that's why a diesel engine doesn't use a sparkplug, it wouldn't do anything rather it uses high compression to ignite the fuel.
Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
 
apfpilot
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:19 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:50 pm

As far as the emergency evacuation, I'm not ready to hang the crew just yet. We don't know what was being communicated to them by the ARFF who has the best view of the entire situation and who I'm sure had already taken on the IC role. Clearly the right choice wasn't evacuating as no one was hurt, and while we don't know if that was by happenstance or as a result of a calculated decision yet at the end of the day that is what matters.
Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
 
infinit
Topic Author
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:01 pm

apfpilot wrote:
As far as the emergency evacuation, I'm not ready to hang the crew just yet. We don't know what was being communicated to them by the ARFF who has the best view of the entire situation and who I'm sure had already taken on the IC role. Clearly the right choice wasn't evacuating as no one was hurt, and while we don't know if that was by happenstance or as a result of a calculated decision yet at the end of the day that is what matters.


My sentiments exact.
As always on this forum, people are so quick to judging, saying who should have done what in their armchairs.
All I know is they got everyone off, and with no injuries at that.
I'll wait for the investigation results to come out before I attempt to throw my opinion into the mix
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:09 pm

sierrakilo44 wrote:

SIACelestar wrote:
Jet fuel in itself is not explosive


Errrrr, no:

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


What you see in that video is a fireball, that's not the same as an explosion.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:11 pm

infinit wrote:
apfpilot wrote:
As far as the emergency evacuation, I'm not ready to hang the crew just yet. We don't know what was being communicated to them by the ARFF who has the best view of the entire situation and who I'm sure had already taken on the IC role. Clearly the right choice wasn't evacuating as no one was hurt, and while we don't know if that was by happenstance or as a result of a calculated decision yet at the end of the day that is what matters.


My sentiments exact.
As always on this forum, people are so quick to judging, saying who should have done what in their armchairs.
All I know is they got everyone off, and with no injuries at that.
I'll wait for the investigation results to come out before I attempt to throw my opinion into the mix


Problem is that investigation will take weeks, if not months - and most people want their answers right now.
I, for one, really appreciate comments discussing technical aspects of the situation as opposed to blaming crew. Apparently, we have seen a happy end in this movie, less apparent is the fact that things could easily go wrong - one way or the other.
 
User avatar
jetfuel
Posts: 1077
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:15 pm

Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2384
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:36 pm

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.


Agree with you, Mr Doc.

It seems like a very serious incident to me, and certainly very scary. I would most probably sh*t my pants in a similar situation... hard to remain calm (and seated) with a wing full of kerosene on fire right next to your window... Why not evacuate???

Also, two hours in the flight...why not simply dump some fuel and land at a nearer airport, rather than having to fly all the way back to Changi??

I might be wrong, but I think that GE90s have had a fair share of issues over time. I had two colleagues witness from aboard a similar accident when a '90 caught fire/had a contained in-flight failure... although they landed back safely and the accident didn't even make the headlines, they still vividly remember it to this day as a very scary experience..to the point that one of them has not flown since.
And although they were not in any way "experts" or aviation obsessed as we are, they were both very much aware of the fact that "the big jet" only two engines, one was on fire, and they were flying over an ocean at night time... Again, they had to dump fuel (happened about 1 hr after take off), and fly back to departure point (Hong Kong), which took quite some time. It was very scary.

So, to go back to topic... mmm.... really didn't like this...
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2384
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:42 pm

BAeRJ100 wrote:
helmat wrote:
Sure cabin crew can start an evacuation, but they are told (at least at my airline) only to do that when the aircraft is broken up and there are no more means to talk to the flight crew.


That's your airline. At my airline, we are also told to initiate if the aircraft's occupants are in immediate danger. Seeing the wing - full of fuel - on fire, I would most certainly take this as being in immediate danger.


Thanks RJ100 - let me know who you fly for, I'll be happy to join you, and help cleaning the galley if need be.. :D
For the time being I'll just avoid flying with Helmat and SQ :shock: just not happy to fly with someone who thinks evacuating is only in case of a structural break-up.. and that a flaming wing does not warrant the deployment of those big yellow rubbers! :ugeek:
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:10 pm

Same typical bunch of arm chair experts voicing their opinions and what they would do hours after the fact. And all based on a few pictures they see or comments they read from other arm chair experts! Bottom line is none of you were in the flight deck, none of you were manning the cabin doors, none of you were looking out of hazards that might impede the evacuation, none of you were in or anywhere near the aircraft......

Give it a rest!!!!
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:13 pm

The fire was controlled within 1-2 minutes of the airplane coming to a stop. It takes 90 seconds to evacuate an airplane. If the crew had evacuated into the fire fighting effort it could have been much worse. All the fire trucks would have had to been much more careful with Pax around the airplane. Hitting the fire with water/foam can push the fire around temporarily until the foam starts to do its part. A fire doubles in size every minute. Exposing pax to that outside the airplane would be very risky.

I dont see anything wrong with the decision they made with the available data but we will have to wait to see how and why the crew made the decision that they did.
 
User avatar
Qatara340
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 2:07 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:27 pm

The crew should have evacuated all pax from the non-fire side! This reminds me of the tragic Saudi Airlines 163 (Tristar) which had a fire in the cargo compartment, but for some idiotic reason, the pax did NOT evacuate and all of them died!

Im sure this time SQ is more vigilant and aware than 1980's Saudia, but still almost ALL of the wing is on fire, in a plane full of fuel for a 12 hour flight. Why did pax disembark the plane following the BA engine fire in LAS? That was less of a fire than this case. I hope SQ reviews its safety procedures!!



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
User avatar
piedmontf284000
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:43 pm

pygmalion wrote:
The fire was controlled within 1-2 minutes of the airplane coming to a stop. It takes 90 seconds to evacuate an airplane. If the crew had evacuated into the fire fighting effort it could have been much worse. All the fire trucks would have had to been much more careful with Pax around the airplane. Hitting the fire with water/foam can push the fire around temporarily until the foam starts to do its part. A fire doubles in size every minute. Exposing pax to that outside the airplane would be very risky.

I dont see anything wrong with the decision they made with the available data but we will have to wait to see how and why the crew made the decision that they did.


^^^^THIS^^^^^

There is know way at this point to know many of the issues regarding the situation. It is too early. It is possible that the pilot dumped his fuel load before landing, in which case there is no probability of an explosion. Also, the pilot reported an oil problem which indicates that what possibly happened is that oil is dripping all over the wing and engine cowling so once the plane slows, the remnants of the oil leak catch fire which makes it look far worse than it is.

In any event, disembarking over two hundred people into a fire, even on the left side is "playing with fire"...pun intended. Smoke, heat, flame retardants would be all within close proximity to these people, which is literally jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. In addition, launching a full evacuation of an airplane to only one side of 777 is going to create more chaos then leaving them on the airplane for a few minutes while the fire is extinguished.

I believe the crew and the first responders did a fantastic job and they should be commended for their actions which were swift and accurate.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4350
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:20 pm

rbavfan wrote:
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.


You'd be wrong. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797

After this incident, Air Canada sold the right wing of this DC-9 aircraft to Ozark Air Lines. On December 20, 1983 an aircraft (tail number N994Z[8]) operating as Ozark Air Lines Flight 650, hit a snow plow in Sioux Falls, killing the snow plow operator and separating the right wing from the aircraft.[9] A wing from C-FTLU was used to replace the one separated on N994Z after the incident. The aircraft was later sold to Republic Airlines, and acquired by Northwest Airlines after Republic merged with Northwest. As of 2012, N994Z was sold for scrap to Evergreen after being assigned to Delta Air Lines, which now owns Northwest Airlines.[10]
The last of the famous international playboys
 
NickLAX
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:30 pm

WTF - does the purser not have authority to authorize an evacuation if the flight crew is "thinking"

This stinks like the TPE crash where the FA's were unsure to evacuate. I hope Singapore aviation regulator investigates this further - GLAD all were safe and that SIN airport has evacuation/rescue airstairs. This was luck that the fire did not bleed through the wing into the fuselage and to the cabin.

Had a many a Singaporean friend tell me to avoid flying MH - yet I had a friend on the SQ TPE crash who tells me his events from that flight (he got off) were a panicked cabin crew and nothing from the cockpit crew - he had to push one of the FA's to evacuate those from near his door (near rear of the aircraft). Has SQ changed since TPE?

Criticize me all you want - my point is even SQ crews have been VERY wrong in the past. Has SQ and Sin Aviation regulator learned from this?
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 597
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:34 pm

As there was a known issue with the aircraft before landing, were emergency crews in position next to the runway? If so, they may have quickly determined that they could control the fire faster and more safely with passengers onboard. I would like to hear the CVR, ATC and even the Emergency Services radio on this one.

While the fire was impressive, I suspect an even bigger concern was the potential for smoke in the cabin.

Engine troubles aside, the 777 appears to be one tough bird.
...are we there yet?
 
MKIAZ
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 5:24 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:52 pm

I see what other people are saying, but IMO this is a really clear case of where an evacuation should have been ordered. They got VERY lucky. How many seconds did they have before the fire burned through into the tank? Even an empty tank has vapor. They really could have been seconds away from everyone on that plane dying.

Obviously they could tell which side was on fire and evacuate out the other side. That's not anything special. Evacuation tests are conducted with 1/2 the exits inoperable.

As other posters have said, If I looked out my window and saw that, I would have gotten up, gone to the door, opened it and jumped on the slide. And any cabin crew that tried to stop me had better be bigger than me.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21562
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:00 pm

AusA380 wrote:
With this discussion I keep coming back to QF32 - lots more fuel and they kept the Pax on the aircraft of > 1hour if I recall correctly, issues around fuel on the ground (pouring out), engine not shutting down and very hot brakes.


This is nothing like that situation.

QF32: engine running, no fire, fuel leaking
SQ: engines off, LOTS of fire, fuel may be leaking

Fuel tanks explode when they catch on fire. Everyone aboard that airplane was in mortal danger and yet they did not evacuate. As I learn more and more about the incident I find this increasingly indefensible.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
flyenthu
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:11 pm

I fly with SQ at least once a year on ultra long haul routes and have come to really love their product. I am booked for another trip to India from LAX in Dec. Incidents like these give me a pause. It appears that the incident was no longer than 2-3 mins. So, that would entail the start of the fire that seemed small and manageable initially, plane coming to a stop, and fire engines dousing the fire out. Many split second decisions were being made at that very brief amount of time at which point the cabin was not compromised. Given what we are learning, I think SQ crew made the right decisions. They were probably applying lessons learned from Asiana crash in SFO where there were deaths from fire trucks.

My question is, what was the source of the fire? I am more curious about that.
 
rukundo
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:10 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:16 pm

 
33lspotter
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:37 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:22 pm

Stitch wrote:
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.


Interesting. According to The BA Source, 24 of their 772ERs (G-VII fleet and G-RAES) are GE90-powered, while there are 18 Rolls-Royce powered 772ERs. That said, it would appear that you are correct that they made the switch for their later deliveries, as all of the BA 772ERs delivered post-2000 have RR engines.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:53 pm

Channex757 wrote:
Let's all stop and think for a minute rather than posting kneejerk reactions.

Getting the doors open could potentially be the worst thing to do under the circumstances. Do you want to go down the slide right into a burning nightmare? Fire crews can be there inside 2 minutes and you also don't want to be on the runway whilst they are charging towards the incident. Remember the Asiana accident?

Fuselages are tested for resistance to burn through. Sitting inside a metal vessel isolated from the wing fire is the best place as there's no burning oil or toxic smoke about. Let the fire crews do their job unimpeded by passengers. A stampede is the very last thing anyone wants.

The damage looks like it's mostly composite panels anyway. Lots of non-loadbearing parts of the 777 are made from it to save weight. As the fire seems to be fairly limited rather than catastrophic I wouldn't think a full tank has ruptured; more likely the engine fire blew out a fuel line or two and that fed the fire.


I am not an expert at all, but my impression is that your comment, Channex757, is quite correct. At this time and just from seeing these videos, I do not think anybody would be able to "decide" that the captain and his crew would not have done the right thing. Ultimately, all left the airplane without having been hurt, and most probably even all the luggage could ultimately be un-loaded.

What I note when viewing the videos is that I canNOT hear the slightest sounds indicating any form of panic among the passengers.

It is VERY important that the passengers did NOT do as had been suggested in at least one contribution to this discussion, i.e. rushed to the emergency exit and opened the door and got out.

It is VERY important to follow the instructions of the flight crew.

I am quite sure the FAs and the cockpit crew were talking to each other, and, had the captain given the order to evacuate the plane, this would have been done by the crew as swiftly as possible.

The fact that nobody among the crew fell into panic - and the crew most probably were very well aware of how serious the situation was - shows, how disciplined and professional the crew reacted.

And, ultimately, that's my impression as a non-expert, the fire fighters did an excellent job.

Finally: Thanks G_d all walked away unhurt and safely.

Best wishes,

Ferroviarius
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:03 pm

Whiteguy wrote:
Same typical bunch of arm chair experts voicing their opinions and what they would do hours after the fact. And all based on a few pictures they see or comments they read from other arm chair experts! Bottom line is none of you were in the flight deck, none of you were manning the cabin doors, none of you were looking out of hazards that might impede the evacuation, none of you were in or anywhere near the aircraft......


This comment implies that one cannot have a well-formed plan of action before an incident like this. This is an error. Over the years I've read official and unofficial reports about fires in hotels and airplanes and even cars, and many others have done the same thing. One thing is made very plain by these reports: people die when they stay inside a structure on fire. Sometimes they also die when they attempt to get out of the structure, but far too often, a failure to act results in great harm.

I found the video of this airplane wing burning very stressful. Were I in that airplane and saw it burning, I would probably not remain in my seat and I most certainly would not be quiet. Why? Because my #1 rule for surviving a fire is to get away from the fire.

Ever examined the behavior of people in an office building when the fire alarms sound? Most people don't move at all, staying right where they are. Some people move, but usually just to see if anybody else is moving. Personally, I grab the most important item I have (my laptop) and I move to the nearest exit. I loudly tell everybody around me that they should come with me, because even if we think the alarm is false, it's a bad, bad idea to be in a burning structure. I don't want to tell a colleague's spouse or children that they are no longer with us because they failed to get out of a burning building, and this is only a case where the building MIGHT be on fire. This airplane was clearly on fire, and in no small way. It was a fuel-fed blazing inferno right under a very large fuel tank formed by some thin aluminum.

Heck, a few weeks ago I hung networked smoke detectors in every room of my house. The first morning I took a long hot shower after hanging the detectors, they alarmed when I opened the bathroom door. (Seems the vapor tripped the alarm closest to the bathroom door.) You can guess what I did, and it wasn't stand there to wonder if my house was on fire or not. I moved directly to the nearest exit and was prepared to leave the building when the alarms stopped ringing.

Perhaps YOU have an opinion about this after the fact. I formed an opinion long before this incident: "I'm getting off this burning gas tank and I'm doing it NOW." And this really isn't an "opinion", but rather foresight and a plan of action. I can pay for a lawyer to keep me out of jail if I commit a crime by exiting the aircraft, but I only have one skin and my family and I prefer that I not shed it in a burning airplane.

Whiteguy wrote:
Give it a rest!!!!


I'm not tired.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2918
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:08 pm

cpd wrote:
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.



This is so similar to the BA flight out here at Vegas, I reached out to my buddy who works in the fire dept at LAS and asked him would they position at the end of the runway the aircraft was heading to.

The clean answer is no, they really don't want to have an aircraft that may be out of control heading at them.

zeke wrote:

Emergency evacuations always result in injuries, using the stairs no-one was injured. While there was fire outside the aircraft, nothing I have seen suggests that there was smoke in the cabin or the cabin was compromised. The fuselage protected the passengers, and the RFF quickly took the external threat away.



Exactly, of course your first reaction is to get the hell out of there, but that's where training comes in, however, if there had been smoke, that's a different story.

Zeke i'm guessing the packs are shut down before landing in a situation like this ?
 
mpdpilot
Posts: 798
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:44 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:10 pm

Qatara340 wrote:
Why did pax disembark the plane following the BA engine fire in LAS? That was less of a fire than this case.


I think one big difference between this incident and the incident in Vegas is that the SQ crew were making an emergency landing, the fire crews were on standby near the runway and ready to go.

In contrast, the BA incident was a take-off with little warning, so fire crews needed to man their vehicles and respond, significantly increasing response time, and for lack of a better analogy, the BA crew were on their own for probably a few minutes.

Slightly different situations, with very similar outcomes.
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:25 pm

ContnlEliteCMH wrote:
Whiteguy wrote:
Same typical bunch of arm chair experts voicing their opinions and what they would do hours after the fact. And all based on a few pictures they see or comments they read from other arm chair experts! Bottom line is none of you were in the flight deck, none of you were manning the cabin doors, none of you were looking out of hazards that might impede the evacuation, none of you were in or anywhere near the aircraft......


This comment implies that one cannot have a well-formed plan of action before an incident like this. This is an error. Over the years I've read official and unofficial reports about fires in hotels and airplanes and even cars, and many others have done the same thing. One thing is made very plain by these reports: people die when they stay inside a structure on fire. Sometimes they also die when they attempt to get out of the structure, but far too often, a failure to act results in great harm.

I found the video of this airplane wing burning very stressful. Were I in that airplane and saw it burning, I would probably not remain in my seat and I most certainly would not be quiet. Why? Because my #1 rule for surviving a fire is to get away from the fire.

...

[quote="Whiteguy"]


"Common sense" and "generalization" are sometimes dangerous patterns of human thinking. While common sense and statistics certainly suggest that it is the best to get away from the fire as quickly as possible, the captain, the crew and the firefighters might have come to the conclusion that the best, in this specific situation, would have been to: "Don't panic! Remain calm! Wait!"

The instinctive "Run away!" reaction might in this case simply have been wrong!

In an "emergency", there is not any standard situation, there cannot be any text book reaction, there should not be any panic reaction, one should take a second or so to see and think.

Specifically in an air plane like that one: I personally would NOT assume that the crew would NOT act professionally. While I might be inclined to assume that it would be the best to rush to the doors, get them open and evacuate, I still keep in mind that, even if the crew acts counter to what I think would be right, the crew still will do the best. My conclusion is: Trust, in this case, the crew more than your own thoughts!
That is what, as it seems, the passengers did, even the person, who recorded that fire with her or his camera. And this discipline among the crew and the passengers might, indeed, have been much better than a panic-evacuation.

Best,

Ferroviarius

Best,
Ferroviarius
 
User avatar
KTPAFlyer
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:08 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:29 pm

Whether 9V-SWB flies again remains to be seen, there is a definite possibility that it will be a write off, BA 2276 was somewhat similar in some repescts but from what I can see, it had significantly less damage on the overall wing, except for the left inboard leading edge slats. SQ 368 was more than an uncontained leak, it set most of the aft wing (and some of the outboard right leading edge slats as well) on fire, and that may have compromised its airworthiness. If SQ engineering can fix this, I would be amazed, but BA did it so who knows!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14901
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:35 pm

From the apron video it's clear that the fire brigade arrived as the plane was just stopping and the engine was already on fire. There was no time to evacuate before they started acting to extinguish. They wet the ground first to prevent fuel spreading the fire then attacked the fire on the wing with full force. The #1 engine may have still be turning, so do you evacuate and risk killing pax that way? At what point do you declare it safe to evacuate? The 30 seconds between the time the engine was confirmed shut down and the fire was already out, while the fire brigade is still surrounding the aircraft and dousing the entire thing with water and foam?

Seems as if in this case, the best course of action was not evacuating...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4350
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:04 pm

KTPAFlyer wrote:
Whether 9V-SWB flies again remains to be seen, there is a definite possibility that it will be a write off, BA 2276 was somewhat similar in some repescts but from what I can see, it had significantly less damage on the overall wing, except for the left inboard leading edge slats. SQ 368 was more than an uncontained leak, it set most of the aft wing (and some of the outboard right leading edge slats as well) on fire, and that may have compromised its airworthiness. If SQ engineering can fix this, I would be amazed, but BA did it so who knows!


This actually reminds me of the pylon fire on that Dynamic B762 a few months back. poorly refitted fuel line dumping fuel into the engine pylon, only in this case in the air not on the ground. Airstream kept gas from igniting till the aircraft landed and then "Fwoosh" so to speak.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
SWALUV
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:17 pm

Granted we don't know the whole facts, but if my aircraft was in that extent of a fire, we're evacuating. This is very similar to the BA 777 incident in LAS. Granted, it's possible that they could not have been aware of the extent of the fire, but if they were, I fail to see why they would remain on board. Even with the risk associated with evacuating, the tank could have blown at any minute (Hot Vapor). Without a report, I think everyone on that flight had someone looking out for them. This could have really ended badly...
 
airtechy
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:35 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:42 pm

I thought all the 777's had nitrogen inerting systems now. Maybe there were no vapors in the tanks.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos