Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
AA100
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:57 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:32 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
AA100 wrote:
I can't help but wonder if the decision to delay and not evacuate was partly down to image.


They landed with known engine issues and fire crews at the ready... while taxiing, and knowing the fire crews were nearby, there's a flashover and flames appear... they come to a halt, start shutting down and running through checklists - while remaining in contact with the fire chief and airport tower... meanwhile fire crews have already arrived, doused the ground and are attacking the blaze... within moments, the fire is brought under control.

At what point in this rapid series of events would they have decided to evacuate - let alone have the luxury to discuss considerations of corporate image?!?

I imagine they were only just ready to *start* assessing go/no-go of evacuation when the flames were practically out - and during that time the fire chief was probably advising to hold since the situation wasn't deteriorating.


Then based on your series of events... I think that the crew were slow to react?! There was raging fire... unless a call from either the captain or fire crew said don't evacuate yet... they were too slow. If you look at events like CX780 or the BA Las Vegas flight - an even more similar situation - evacuation was ordered almost as soon as fire was seen - because fire spreads quickly. Which is why my 'image' question came up because the captain may have decided to 'wait and see' if the fire could be put out before evacuating. I my mind, wait and see is not good enough.

If I had been at a window seat on the side of the fire, I would have certainly got up and stood in the aisle to await evacuation orders... rather than try and scramble over 2 other people to exit.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:53 am

zeke wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
If not when most of the wing is burning, then what criteria is left? I'm having

kalvado wrote:
I'm afraid pilots would have VERY hard time explaining why KUL would not be suitable - if, indeed, they were in 1-engine cruise. A major airport with regular company flights, including widebodies... There are even photos of SQ 777 in KUL. Weather doesn't look like a factor as well..


We had an instance only a few month ago where KUL, HKT, and PEN were all closed. KUL was closed due Wx, all the aircraft that diverted to HKT and PEN filled them up. I just don't know enough about the information made available to the crew that they based their decisions on. What seems obvious to you may not be the case.

Given they landed at 6:50 am, probably had the return back to SIN in the FMC already programmed before departure. Also a lot of airports conduct runway maintenance at night, prior to 6am when the decision was made to turn around I do not know what runways in the area were open.


Still hard to buy.
They passed KUL after cruising at FL170 for at least 45 minutes (flightaware has a data discontinuation) and 35 minutes before landing at SIN.
I don't have METAR, but per http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/mala ... r/historic weather in KUL was beautiful.
Bangladesh air A310 departed KUL at 3.45 local, Air Asia A320 at 5.44 local - looks like runways were available. Hard to expect both 13000' runways in service at the same time.
And "filled up for weather diversions" and "cannot accept emergency landing" are two very different animals I would say.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1911
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:21 pm

AA100 wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
AA100 wrote:
I can't help but wonder if the decision to delay and not evacuate was partly down to image.


At what point in this rapid series of events would they have decided to evacuate


Then based on your series of events... I think that the crew were slow to react?!


Soooo.... they evacuate while taxiing? While the engines are still running? While the fire crews are blasting the area with water and foam?

At no point before the fire was being controlled was it in any way safe for passengers to evacuate and in any case the crew was too occupied (in the interests of safety).
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3211
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:33 pm

ArmitageShanks wrote:
One of the many reasons I only take a carry on. Quick evacuation and I'm on my way. Can you imagine how long it would take to get your bags after something like that? Probably days.

So you would be one of those people we bash for taking all of their stuff with them when they evacuate, endangering other passengers because of your selfish nature? :roll:
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
AA100
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:57 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:37 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
AA100 wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:

At what point in this rapid series of events would they have decided to evacuate


Then based on your series of events... I think that the crew were slow to react?!


Soooo.... they evacuate while taxiing? While the engines are still running? While the fire crews are blasting the area with water and foam?

At no point before the fire was being controlled was it in any way safe for passengers to evacuate and in any case the crew was too occupied (in the interests of safety).


I would have said potentially as soon as it stopped. Literally within 3 seconds a call for evacuation could have been asked, and within a couple of mins, all occupants could leave via one side of the aircraft while fire team respond on other side of the aircraft.
In many other cases evacuation has gotten underway before or during firefighter action - particularly possible in this case when it was isolated to one side of the aircraft.

I would be interested to know who made what decisions and vocalized them in this case as it would allow us to understand why they didn't evacuate.

I still cant believe an evacuation didn't get underway with a raging fire on the wing - even if fire crew were attending - no way to know the fire won't spread, cause explosion etc. In my opinion, even with the event of some pax sustianing minor injuries in an evacuation -> evacuation as a preventive measure over, staying on the plane in the hopes fire crew will sort it out seems most sensible.

This is an industry where we take precautions and we don't 'wait and see'
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:50 pm

CX Flyboy wrote:
Have a look at the photos of the damage after the fire was put out and you can see that it must have been pretty intense.


The opposite actually, the only post fire photo I have seen is the one posted earlier on this thread. The paint on the composite parts was scorched and some plastic melted, saw no evidence of the fire being hot enough to burn metal.

We don't build aircraft from TNT or hydrogen peroxide so you actually need a lot of heat to start burning the aircraft structure. I'm not sure how much of the 35l of oil was still attached to the wing when they landed so I would question how much energy was in that oil to act as an accelerant to cause a threat to the passenger cabin in its own right.

In good time we will see the report, as I mentioned in a previous post I expect it will contain some good lessons.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:30 pm

enzo011 wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
I don't want to come off as passing judgement on the crew. I have no doubt that they will do what they think is best for the passengers, but that doesn't always mean they have been trained to recognize the appropriate response, or can't learn from emergencies where the appropriate response was unclear.


You are passing judgement if you state that they should have evacuated. You are stating that you would have ordered the evacuation if you had been in charge and are stating you think their judgement was wrong.

If someone didn't want to pass judgement on this event they will wait for the investigation where all the facts are known.


No, I'm not. First of all, as I've stated, my opinion is not final, even though I'm relatively confident in it.

Secondly and more to the point, I'm not using my opinion to condemn the crew as reckless, negligent, incompetent, etc. I do wonder about the training they received and whether it appropriately prepared them for this situation, but that concern is not directly about the crew members.

zeke wrote:
CX Flyboy wrote:
Have a look at the photos of the damage after the fire was put out and you can see that it must have been pretty intense.


The opposite actually, the only post fire photo I have seen is the one posted earlier on this thread. The paint on the composite parts was scorched and some plastic melted, saw no evidence of the fire being hot enough to burn metal.

We don't build aircraft from TNT or hydrogen peroxide so you actually need a lot of heat to start burning the aircraft structure. I'm not sure how much of the 35l of oil was still attached to the wing when they landed so I would question how much energy was in that oil to act as an accelerant to cause a threat to the passenger cabin in its own right.

In good time we will see the report, as I mentioned in a previous post I expect it will contain some good lessons.


The potential for this to rapidly worsen starts long before aluminum starts burning. The yield strength of the 2000 and 7000 series tempered aluminum alloys used on the 777 plummets as you pass 300 deg F. They're extremely temperature sensitive. I coincidentally also happened to be reviewing specs on fuel tank sealants this week at work and noticed they start to break down around the same temperature.

Yes, the fuel is very cold and acts as a massive heat sink, but the aluminum will still be hotter than the fuel at the interior interface, and have and very steep temperature gradient toward the exterior surface. There absolutely would be reduced strength. At fay-sealed surfaces, the sealant is not effectively in contact with the fuel and can also be expected to get hot enough to be damaged.

In the pylon area there are fuel lines not kept cold by that mass of fuel. I assume they're either steel tubing or steel braid jacketed, which is far more resilient than aluminum or rubber, but even then there is risk of seal damage providing additional fuel to worsen the fire.
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:04 pm

FredrikHAD wrote:
If the fire is inside the cabin, not opening doors will pretty soon give you a lesson in chemistry, the one where oxygen oxidizes carbon (as in burning the interior up) and forms carbon (di)oxide. But it is absolutely true that opening doors will "fuel" the fire. In an in-cabin fire situation, you have a very tough decision to make.

Reading up on the subject, I found that a fire will extinguish itself at about 14-16 % oxygen level, depending on what's burning (I'm assuming there's not a gasoline fire). Humans can survive a 10 % oxygen atmosphere, so keeping the doors closed may still be the best option.


Oxygen deprivation is rarely the cause of death in a fire. It is inhalation of poisonous gasses that are a product of combustion. Trying to survive in a burning/smoking fire room by depriving it of O2 is not a good approach.

-Bob
rcair1
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:18 pm

zeke wrote:
What was burning was a thin layer of engine oil that migrated across the wing due to airflow. The metallic wing did not burn, nor was the fuel tank compromised. Now if you go back to you basic fire triangle, fuel, heat, air. The fuel was limited to the thin layer of oil that remained attached to the wing, the heat would be low as the aircraft would still be cold from flying.


I'm sorry Zeke. Based upon my 30 or so years of firefighting, that was not 'thin layer of oil' burning. There was significant fuel there (fuel from the sense of a combustible material).

As for those talking about "fuel tanks exploding". That is rare, not impossible, but rare. However, what is not rare is a fire breaching a fuel tank or line and releasing a large leak which turns into a large fire. There are little or no precursors you can see, as a firefighter or observer, to that. It just suddenly happens, then the fire gets much worse.

Finally, regarding 'waiting till the fire burns through into the cabin.' I'm pretty goosey about that. Perhaps, if you pre-evac (prepare by getting people up in the aisle and ready to go). The problem with that is that there is no protocol for it. It is unlikely you will be able to 'control' it.

I don't have the data needed to fully evaluate the actions by crew so I'm not ready to conclude that they should have evacuated. But my gut, based on a lot of experience, is that I'm NEVER confident enough in my firefighting capabilities (not me personally, but the fire crew/apparatus) to want to leave people in close proximity to a fire like that by "being sure" I'll get it out. Things can go very bad, very quickly and with very little warning - and with little recourse. That video made me very nervous.

But. Sometimes you are faced with a menu of bad choices
- Stay in the plan counting on the fire crews to get it out.
- Evacuate into a more hazardous environment.

You make your best decision based on the information you have. In this case, the decisions they made resulted in a good outcome. That is not the same as "it was the best decision" but it was a decision that did not have dire consequences.

I'll be interested in the reports.
rcair1
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2388
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:43 pm

I couldn't agree more.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:37 am

Very nice first post, Chipmunk1973! Welcome to a.net!

FredrikHAM, an excellent list of considerations. I do agree with honkgongflyer's caveats, however.

I do think we tend to consider these events in 20-20 hindsight, and with the knowledge of what actually happened. In reality emergencies are fluid, and things could have developed in multiple other ways. That is why it is important to get information from the eventual report, to understand who knew and what, what kind of damage there was, how close to breaking we were on specific dangers, etc. My personal opinion is that the fire was big enough for the evacuation to be necessary when there is no perfect knowledge of what will happen in the future. Can the fire fighters extinguish it? Will some structure give in? Will smoke be able to enter? However, of course you need to be ready for the evacuation, and run the checklist. Perhaps what happened here was that they *wanted* to evacuate but by the time they were ready, the danger was substantially down due to fire fighting operations. And by *then* they knew the firefighters were progressing in the extinguishing process.

But it is all speculation, we don't know what was going on inside yet. And, I dislike when people take very hard positions here without such knowledge. "Of course the crew did the right thing, there was no need to evacuate, obviously you should have evacuated" and so on.

I do have a question or two though.

Do we know what the crew knew about the fire before landing? Did they know that there might be an issue? Was the fire services ready as a matter of standard practise, or due to knowing a specific danger?

Do we know *when* the fire appeared? When they flew, landed, were rolling on the runway? It clearly started before they stopped, that much I know from the video.

And in general, how long does it take to shut down an engine? And how long does it take to run the evac checklist?
 
skyhawkmatthew
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sat Jul 02, 2016 10:01 am

how long does it take to shut down an engine? And how long does it take to run the evac checklist?


It's one switch in the cockpit for the engine; give them maybe 10 seconds to spool down to a speed that won't suck anything in.

Evac checklist (which includes shutting down the engines): maybe 30-40 seconds.
Qantas - The Spirit of Australia.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:20 am

rcair1 wrote:
zeke wrote:
I'm sorry Zeke. Based upon my 30 or so years of firefighting, that was not 'thin layer of oil' burning. There was significant fuel there (fuel from the sense of a combustible material).
...
However, what is not rare is a fire breaching a fuel tank or line and releasing a large leak which turns into a large fire. There are little or no precursors you can see, as a firefighter or observer, to that. It just suddenly happens, then the fire gets much worse.
...
Finally, regarding 'waiting till the fire burns through into the cabin.' I'm pretty goosey about that.
...
Things can go very bad, very quickly and with very little warning - and with little recourse. That video made me very nervous.
...
I'll be interested in the reports.


Thanks for these, rcair1. Much appreciated. I also agree.

Much information to be discovered before we can determine what happened, why, and whether some other action might have been more recommendable. But there is no doubt that this was a dicey situation.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:55 pm

rcair1 wrote:
I'm sorry Zeke. Based upon my 30 or so years of firefighting, that was not 'thin layer of oil' burning. There was significant fuel there (fuel from the sense of a combustible material).


I am very disappointed with your comments.

Let me put it another way, if 35l of oil were put in a enclosure twice the wing areas of a 777 (to account for the top an d bottom), and to take into account the pressure distribution that takes air from the root towards the tip. How much of the 35 liters of oil do you think was left on the wing ?

How much next to the fuselage ? Is that enough fuel to burn though ?
How long would it take for you to put such a fire out ? We are talking about a small amount of fuel and some very big appliances in response very quickly (as evidenced by the people that took footage from inside the aircraft at the time through the window).

I have seen some amazing thin surfaces of fuel ignite over my time only to burn out. I have even had fuel on me physically burn before but I feel cold as it burns off without being burnt.

As to your comments about people being spring loaded, we would have briefed the cabin crew before landing, and they would have been standing by for an evac after landing.

An emergency evacuation and precautionary evacuation are not mutually exclusive. Even when boarding pax at the start of the flight we have cabin crew standing by at the doors and bridge connected in case there is a fire during refueling.

Please keep the thread practical and civil.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sat Jul 02, 2016 6:08 pm

New video from inside: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5B8QrpudpA

If they were prepared for an evacuation but were waiting for clarity on the situation before initiating it, they were going about it in a very strange way. Passengers up and in the aisles, getting their luggage out of the bins without FAs instructing them otherwise (and in fact what sounds like an FA telling them to get their luggage and go forward), all while the fire continued to burn outside.

It makes one wonder whether an evacuation was even considered as a possibility, and if not why not.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:09 pm

Mir wrote:
If they were prepared for an evacuation but were waiting for clarity on the situation before initiating it, they were going about it in a very strange way.


!

I don't know what was going on inside that plane, but it for sure doesn't look right.
 
FlyboyOz
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:05 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:38 am

A lot of people from their posts said that pax must evacuate immediately.

Remember Asiana 777 crash in SFO... it did mention that pax were told to stay in seats after crash. See a link: - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-11/p ... sh/4813822

Fire is unpredictable and we are not sure what the problem is inside the aircraft machine eg not sure where the fire goes to. It could be touched the broken electronic and then it would go explode. It doesn't matter what fireproof they have got and what special material that can protect the fuselage , etc. Machine is very big and complicated cos we cannot see and cannot be sure what the damage is inside the aircraft. It would be better to evacuate rather than staying inside the cabin.
The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:31 am

FlyboyOz wrote:
A lot of people from their posts said that pax must evacuate immediately.

Remember Asiana 777 crash in SFO... it did mention that pax were told to stay in seats after crash. See a link: - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-11/p ... sh/4813822


meanwhile from NTSB report, p.107, section 2.8.1.1 Evacuation:
By this time, flight attendant L2A had already commanded the evacuation after observing
fire outside door 2R.

and same report, p.127 section 3.1 Findings
17. The flight attendants acted appropriately when they initiated an emergency evacuation
upon determining there was a fire outside door 2R.


and p. 141, statement by commission member Mark R. Rosekind
The evacuation of an airplane must happen immediately for the best chance to avoid
death or injury by fire.
...
Acting Chairman Hart and Member Weener joined in this statement.




I would say this is pretty simple English to understand.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:33 pm

kalvado wrote:
meanwhile from NTSB report, p.107, section 2.8.1.1 Evacuation:
By this time, flight attendant L2A had already commanded the evacuation after observing
fire outside door 2R.

and same report, p.127 section 3.1 Findings
17. The flight attendants acted appropriately when they initiated an emergency evacuation
upon determining there was a fire outside door 2R.


and p. 141, statement by commission member Mark R. Rosekind
The evacuation of an airplane must happen immediately for the best chance to avoid
death or injury by fire.
...
Acting Chairman Hart and Member Weener joined in this statement.




I would say this is pretty simple English to understand.



Are you suggesting they should have evacuated because of what happened with the Asiana accident?
 
AA100
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:57 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:21 pm

https://www.facebook.com/buddy.espinosa ... nref=story

I can't believe they didn't evacuate.....
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:18 am

enzo011 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
meanwhile from NTSB report, p.107, section 2.8.1.1 Evacuation:
By this time, flight attendant L2A had already commanded the evacuation after observing
fire outside door 2R.

and same report, p.127 section 3.1 Findings
17. The flight attendants acted appropriately when they initiated an emergency evacuation
upon determining there was a fire outside door 2R.


and p. 141, statement by commission member Mark R. Rosekind
The evacuation of an airplane must happen immediately for the best chance to avoid
death or injury by fire.
...
Acting Chairman Hart and Member Weener joined in this statement.




I would say this is pretty simple English to understand.



Are you suggesting they should have evacuated because of what happened with the Asiana accident?


I was not the one who started Asiana comparison. However I can see that NTSB report saying - not once, but twice :
Fire = evacuation. I don't see any "ifs" there.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:54 am

It is not sensible or constructive to take words from one incident where there was catestrophic structural failure and say that is the rule book that must be followed in all future situations.

This event should have some invaluable lessons we can all learn from. But at the end of the day it is the crew that was on the spot that has to make decisions in realtime with the information they had available to them.

Too many people in my view with the luxury of hindsight are being very critical of the crew for actions they see should have been carried out.

Most ignore the fact that the crews actions resulted in no injuries.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:56 am

Another remotely similar case: 744 brakes fire at SYD.
report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24408/aai ... 80_001.pdf
ATSB report quotes 744 QRH, 777 QRH has exact same wording:
It should be stressed for persistent smoke or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished,
the earliest possible descent, landing, and passenger evacuation should be accomplished.

QF6 had brakes fire which was noticed after jetbridge was attached and boarding door was opened. Fire self-extingushed before fire trucks arrived. Evacuation decision is not questioned.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:02 am

zeke wrote:
It is not sensible or constructive to take words from one incident where there was catestrophic structural failure and say that is the rule book that must be followed in all future situations.

[...]
Most ignore the fact that the crews actions resulted in no injuries.


At this point we're down to a more simple question: if QRH procedures should be followed.
No injuries is a good thing - but sometimes that happens despite someone's actions, not because of them. Chance of surviving russian roulette is also pretty high..
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 13331
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:09 am

kalvado wrote:
At this point we're down to a more simple question: if QRH procedures should be followed.
No injuries is a good thing - but sometimes that happens despite someone's actions, not because of them. Chance of surviving russian roulette is also pretty high..


That's a silly non sequitur at this point. Without the investigation and knowing the factual nature and source of the fire (which again, the crew's knowledge of is completely unknown to us at this point), there is no scientific basis for assigning survival probability to this incident.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:16 am

kalvado wrote:
I was not the one who started Asiana comparison. However I can see that NTSB report saying - not once, but twice :
Fire = evacuation. I don't see any "ifs" there.


I just wanted to know if you agree with that point, if there is fire you need to evacuate. As others have posted each incident is unique and will have different circumstances as each flight is unique. The weather is not the same every day so even the exact same incident on two different days will have different variables attached to it.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:50 am

Good morning,

my impression is that a lot of contributions to this discussion are based on common sense considerations. Quite certainly, some contributors will have some, or even a lot of, expertise on both technical and legal matters related to this incident, but still, there is quite a number of "common sense" based considerations.

Now, as a physicist, I feel I am being allowed to do what a physicist's main job is, to question "common sense" thinking and acting.
In casu: To my mind , it (would) have be(en) extremely dangerous - and even egoistic - if passengers would (have) "take(n) decisions in their own hands", based on their common sense . Sit down and wait and do not panic! While nobody is perfect: As a passenger, one should expect the crew to act appropriately for saving lives and minimizing damage. It is a little bit like going to the doctor because you are sick. The doctor, in general, will know better what to do than the patient. The doctor can help if and only if the patient does what the doctor prescribes. In many cases, what the doctor says will be felt by the patient to be "crazy" or not common sense based, but the doctor still in general will know better than the patient what to do.

Let's hope we never end up in a situation as the one we are discussing here.

Best wishes,

Ferroviarius
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:18 am

kalvado wrote:
At this point we're down to a more simple question: if QRH procedures should be followed.


What qrh procedure do you think was not followed ?
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:52 am

enzo011 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I was not the one who started Asiana comparison. However I can see that NTSB report saying - not once, but twice :
Fire = evacuation. I don't see any "ifs" there.


I just wanted to know if you agree with that point, if there is fire you need to evacuate. As others have posted each incident is unique and will have different circumstances as each flight is unique. The weather is not the same every day so even the exact same incident on two different days will have different variables attached to it.

Since this thread did previously turn into "who got a bigger... err... logbook" - I am not pretending mine is bigger than yours, I am just putting a few factors on "evacuate" side, namely:
-training of QF flight crew as demonstrated in previous accident
-training of OZ cabin crew as demonstrated in previous accident
-opinion of Boeing engineers expressed in QRH
-opinion of NHTSB Administrator
-opinion of NTSB Chairmen, previously FAA Deputy Director for Air Traffic Safety Oversight.

From my perspective, discussion should go along "they should do evacuation, but they didn't. What are the reasons for that? are those valid reasons?" lines
My humble and totally unqualified opinion is that in a grand scheme of things this situation is a carbon copy of OZ214 accident, when PIC did something wrong and was not corrected by other crewmembers.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:55 am

zeke wrote:
kalvado wrote:
At this point we're down to a more simple question: if QRH procedures should be followed.


What qrh procedure do you think was not followed ?

copied from QRH without any modifications:
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:24 pm

kalvado wrote:
copied from QRH without any modifications:
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done


You failed to read and answer the question, which qrh procedure ?
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:40 pm

kalvado wrote:
My humble and totally unqualified opinion is that in a grand scheme of things this situation is a carbon copy of OZ214 accident, when PIC did something wrong and was not corrected by other crewmembers.

Yes, because they're all Asians, right? :roll:
Nxt Flts: SQ SIN-KIX | HD UKB-CTS | NH CTS-NRT | SQ NRT-SIN | AK SIN-DPS-SIN
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 1:42 pm

Coal wrote:
kalvado wrote:
My humble and totally unqualified opinion is that in a grand scheme of things this situation is a carbon copy of OZ214 accident, when PIC did something wrong and was not corrected by other crewmembers.

Yes, because they're all Asians, right? :roll:


No, because people are the same everywhere. I don't believe in deep thoughtful analysis done within those seconds as other posters speculate. There was shortage of information and communication within a short time. Black, white or purple with yellow spots - doesn't matter. Either there is a previous training (applicable or not) which kicks in, or there is some mostly irrational response - or lack of response.
If you will, QF accident is sort of similar, although actions were opposite: training kicked in, and evacuation was performed. Evacuation was an overkill - but there was no time for analysis .
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:09 pm

zeke wrote:
kalvado wrote:
copied from QRH without any modifications:
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done


You failed to read and answer the question, which qrh procedure ?

OK, this is not part of checklist. This is part of instructions of how to use checklists. Does that make the statement less authoritative?
Makes situation more confusing. though.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 13331
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:13 pm

kalvado wrote:
No, because people are the same everywhere. I don't believe in deep thoughtful analysis done within those seconds as other posters speculate. There was shortage of information and communication within a short time


Except...you, I, and everyone don't know the full facts of what they knew and when. There may have been an information shortage, or they may have popped a cockpit window and seen right away. Funny how you keep wanting to dance around that...
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:06 pm

kalvado wrote:
OK, this is not part of checklist. This is part of instructions of how to use checklists. Does that make the statement less authoritative?
Makes situation more confusing. though.


I don't think they were in the qrh at all, that is why I was curious as to the procedure you said they were not following.

I don't know who's qrh you are looking at, instructions are something that maybe airline specific as the qrh is not a certified document, the AFM is. The qrh takes information from the AFM and airlines can add their additional information.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:36 pm

kalvado wrote:
copied from QRH without any modifications:
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done


First - There was no fire until the airplane taxied clear of the runway, only a possibility

Second - The statement you're using relates to interior smoke/fire, was only added to cover incidents like SwissAir and is why we have so many diversions these days for fumes

Third - By the time they had come to a stop and would have been to the point of calling the cabin crew to evacuate, they had several fire trucks staring at them and starting to foam the airplane

IMHO - no evacuation necessary, they did he right thing
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:09 pm

zeke wrote:
kalvado wrote:
OK, this is not part of checklist. This is part of instructions of how to use checklists. Does that make the statement less authoritative?
Makes situation more confusing. though.


I don't think they were in the qrh at all, that is why I was curious as to the procedure you said they were not following.

I don't know who's qrh you are looking at, instructions are something that maybe airline specific as the qrh is not a certified document, the AFM is. The qrh takes information from the AFM and airlines can add their additional information.


The phrase came up since it was quoted by ATSB in QF6 report as I mentioned above. ATSB went into discussion how brakes fire wording was removed from 744 QRH compared to 742 QRH, but generic fire phrase is still there.
QR 777 QRH has exact same wording. I don't believe that would be operator-specific phrase.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:24 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
No, because people are the same everywhere. I don't believe in deep thoughtful analysis done within those seconds as other posters speculate. There was shortage of information and communication within a short time


Except...you, I, and everyone don't know the full facts of what they knew and when. There may have been an information shortage, or they may have popped a cockpit window and seen right away. Funny how you keep wanting to dance around that...


We're all in the same boat regarding available information. So why do you think you are entitled for your opinion?
Nothing personal, just pointing out that situation is just pretty symmetric opinion-wise.
I am providing some high profile sources to back up "evacuation" standpoint. I didn't see anything beyond "firefighters were already there" argument to defend the "stay seated" approach.
As far as I understand, civil aviation is very much procedure driven. Is there any procedure, either generic or specific to SQ, related to that situation and recommending "wait and see"?
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:35 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
copied from QRH without any modifications:
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done


First - There was no fire until the airplane taxied clear of the runway, only a possibility

Second - The statement you're using relates to interior smoke/fire, was only added to cover incidents like SwissAir and is why we have so many diversions these days for fumes

Third - By the time they had come to a stop and would have been to the point of calling the cabin crew to evacuate, they had several fire trucks staring at them and starting to foam the airplane

IMHO - no evacuation necessary, they did he right thing


I would say your statements 1 and 3 are in deep contradiction. There was no fire, but in 60 seconds between touchdown and coming to stop situation developed from zero to massive flame. Are you saying such trend is conductive to "let's see what happens next" approach?

I would love to see CVR transcript to know what happened between pilots.
FAs had limited information on what is going on, no direct communication with firefighters, and I doubt any information was relayed to them via phone instead of PA - and nothing on PA, at least I didn't hear that in videos.
So, unlike OZ214 and BA2276, FAs responded to fire in a different way. Is that matter of training or what?
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:02 pm

kalvado wrote:

I would say your statements 1 and 3 are in deep contradiction. There was no fire, but in 60 seconds between touchdown and coming to stop situation developed from zero to massive flame. Are you saying such trend is conductive to "let's see what happens next" approach?

I would love to see CVR transcript to know what happened between pilots.
FAs had limited information on what is going on, no direct communication with firefighters, and I doubt any information was relayed to them via phone instead of PA - and nothing on PA, at least I didn't hear that in videos.
So, unlike OZ214 and BA2276, FAs responded to fire in a different way. Is that matter of training or what?


You have to stop comparing this incident with OZ214. To continue doing so would show that you have a complete lack of understanding about what happened in SFO.
 
SIA747Megatop
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:36 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:12 pm

On Singapore radio some facts were brought to light:
- Pilots are using the 90 second rule. If the fire wasn't under control/attended to in 90 seconds an evacuation was on the cards. This is where the on-scene fire commander comes into the picture. His information was necessary.

- Firefighters started foaming the aircraft less than 80 seconds after it came to a complete stop, the approached the aircraft from the nose, as a result passengers wouldn't have been able to see them.

- The fire was engine oil and not jet fuel - based on the images only the composites burned and not the actual 'metal' part of the airframe which includes the wing fuel tanks (the latter was discussion and hasn't been confirmed but substantiated by the pictures showing the flaps burning/melting but not the wing itself).

Spoke to an SQ cabin crew inflight-supervisor about it - he said you move people forward into the business cabin when a lot of people are standing up in Economy Class as the aisles get crowded and there is a lot more space for people to spread out by moving forward, he believes that was the general idea and would've done the same.
Another IFS mentioned that injuries are inevitable during evacuation - especially since there would only be 5 usable doors, imagine all the Y class passengers trying to evacuate though 3 doors.
Herd mentality, when 1 person stands up others will follow. Especially true in this case as the window seat passengers would've wanted to move first. The aisles would've been clogged with multiple rows of 3-seat blocks of people(H, J, K seats near the wing) standing in the aisle.
I found the edit signature button
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:59 pm

TheF15Ace wrote:
You have to stop comparing this incident with OZ214. To continue doing so would show that you have a complete lack of understanding about what happened in SFO.

Well, I would say this may be irrelevant in technical details, but ABSOLUTELY relevant in terms of human actions.
Evacuation of OZ214 started 93 seconds after plane came to a stop - despite pilot's instructions "please wait".
Heavy flow of pax lasted 2 min 30 sec (and about 5 min in BA2276 case), and 10 minutes after the stop firefighters observed active fire inside the cabin, possibly earlier.
Apparently pilots didn't have a clue of what happened with the plane (so much for "look out of the window") for quite a while. And firefighters arriving within 2 minutes still couldn't save cabin from fire.
 
SIA747Megatop
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:36 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:20 pm

:shock:
kalvado wrote:
Well, I would say this may be irrelevant in technical details, but ABSOLUTELY relevant in terms of human actions.

Technical details? The situations were completely different. The structural integrity of the SQ 77W fuselage wasn't compromised in any way. There was no smoke or fire in the cabin. If there was, alarms would've gone off both in the cabin and in the flight deck. If the hypothetical smoke/fire was deemed out of control that would've prompted an evacuation in itself.
Evacuation of OZ214 started 93 seconds after plane came to a stop - despite pilot's instructions "please wait".
Heavy flow of pax lasted 2 min 30 sec (and about 5 min in BA2276 case), and 10 minutes after the stop firefighters observed active fire inside the cabin, possibly earlier.

Exactly - after 10 minutes there was active fire in the cabin. In this case the fire extinguished in less than half that time and under control much sooner - further proving how different the situations were.
And firefighters arriving within 2 minutes still couldn't save cabin from fire.

Maybe because the damage to the aircraft was far worse?
I found the edit signature button
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:51 pm

kalvado wrote:
Well, I would say this may be irrelevant in technical details, but ABSOLUTELY relevant in terms of human actions.
Evacuation of OZ214 started 93 seconds after plane came to a stop - despite pilot's instructions "please wait".
Heavy flow of pax lasted 2 min 30 sec (and about 5 min in BA2276 case), and 10 minutes after the stop firefighters observed active fire inside the cabin, possibly earlier.
Apparently pilots didn't have a clue of what happened with the plane (so much for "look out of the window") for quite a while. And firefighters arriving within 2 minutes still couldn't save cabin from fire.


Firefighters also killed a passenger by driving over her. So unless you think that is a success and a good example I think it may just show its prudent not to evacuate if there will be heavy vehicles rushing towards your location.

Wait for the report to come out and see what the factors were that made them wait and see if the safety agencies agree with their actions. We can then debate ourselves whether we agree with that or not, but I find it hard to criticize the crew right now when all passengers were able to walk off the aircraft and be on their way a couple of hours later to their destination. If information comes out that they were about 5 seconds from disaster then we can learn from it, but it doesn't change the outcome that no passengers or crew were hurt.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:53 pm

SIA747Megatop wrote:
:shock:
kalvado wrote:
Well, I would say this may be irrelevant in technical details, but ABSOLUTELY relevant in terms of human actions.

Technical details? The situations were completely different. The structural integrity of the SQ 77W fuselage wasn't compromised in any way. There was no smoke or fire in the cabin. If there was, alarms would've gone off both in the cabin and in the flight deck. If the hypothetical smoke/fire was deemed out of control that would've prompted an evacuation in itself.
Evacuation of OZ214 started 93 seconds after plane came to a stop - despite pilot's instructions "please wait".
Heavy flow of pax lasted 2 min 30 sec (and about 5 min in BA2276 case), and 10 minutes after the stop firefighters observed active fire inside the cabin, possibly earlier.

Exactly - after 10 minutes there was active fire in the cabin. In this case the fire extinguished in less than half that time and under control much sooner - further proving how different the situations were.
And firefighters arriving within 2 minutes still couldn't save cabin from fire.

Maybe because the damage to the aircraft was far worse?


Absolutely valid points. And question is how much information was available to the crew within those 2-3 minutes right after things went wrong, and what kind of conclusions were made - and should be made - based on what was known.
Apparently Asiana crew did not realize that plane was trashed. Did SQ crew realize that fire was smaller than it looks? Or did pilots realize there was a fire to begin with?
Most people assume everything was crystal clear from the cockpit. I heavily doubt that.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:15 pm

enzo011 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Well, I would say this may be irrelevant in technical details, but ABSOLUTELY relevant in terms of human actions.
Evacuation of OZ214 started 93 seconds after plane came to a stop - despite pilot's instructions "please wait".
Heavy flow of pax lasted 2 min 30 sec (and about 5 min in BA2276 case), and 10 minutes after the stop firefighters observed active fire inside the cabin, possibly earlier.
Apparently pilots didn't have a clue of what happened with the plane (so much for "look out of the window") for quite a while. And firefighters arriving within 2 minutes still couldn't save cabin from fire.


Firefighters also killed a passenger by driving over her. So unless you think that is a success and a good example I think it may just show its prudent not to evacuate if there will be heavy vehicles rushing towards your location.

Wait for the report to come out and see what the factors were that made them wait and see if the safety agencies agree with their actions. We can then debate ourselves whether we agree with that or not, but I find it hard to criticize the crew right now when all passengers were able to walk off the aircraft and be on their way a couple of hours later to their destination. If information comes out that they were about 5 seconds from disaster then we can learn from it, but it doesn't change the outcome that no passengers or crew were hurt.


Great point about pax 41e.
The NTSB concludes that passengers 41B and 41E were unrestrained for landing and ejected through the ruptured tail of the airplane at different times during the impact sequence . It is likely that these passengers would have remained in the cabin and survived if they had been wearing their seatbelts
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:59 pm

SIA747Megatop wrote:
On Singapore radio some facts were brought to light:
- Pilots are using the 90 second rule. If the fire wasn't under control/attended to in 90 seconds an evacuation was on the cards. This is where the on-scene fire commander comes into the picture. His information was necessary.


That seems like an odd rule (if it is a general guideline). Surely, there has to be more to that rule than just this? If you have a fuel tank rupturing, with flames under, say, the rear part of the fuselage you only have 90-100 sec before the cabin temp skyrockets. This is a well known fact when discussing aircraft fires. Given the general response times of the ARFF, a rule that tells the crew to wait until the cabin starts to boil before evacuating seems unwise.

SIA747Megatop wrote:
- The fire was engine oil and not jet fuel


You (well, the media) state this as a fact. Do we really know that? (well, it was on the radio so it must be true :)). Some of the oil must have ended up on the runway when things started breaking. Someone mentioned 35 l of oil in that engine type. If most of that oil ended up on the wing, I might believe it, but I would expect most of the oil to end up on the runway. Hard to tell, but I'd be surprised if it was only some 20 liters of engine oil in that fire.

SIA747Megatop wrote:
Spoke to an SQ cabin crew inflight-supervisor about it - he said you move people forward into the business cabin when a lot of people are standing up in Economy Class as the aisles get crowded and there is a lot more space for people to spread out by moving forward, he believes that was the general idea and would've done the same.


Looking at several videos, it's pretty clear that the wind was coming from the 10 or 11 o'clock position of the aircraft, driving flames and smoke to the rear and away from the fuselage. Moving pax forward may have been triggered by this as well. Distributing pax evenly in the safe parts of the cabin is also a good idea. Perhaps they were gathering people in the forward part of the cabin in preparation for an evac, should it prove necessary. The direction of the wind was a strongly contributing factor for the outcome of this event. Referring to previous discussions on Anet, I still think pilots should take wind direction into account in a fire scenario (if possible!).

/Fredrik
 
SIA747Megatop
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:36 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Jul 04, 2016 10:11 pm

FredrikHAD wrote:
You (well, the media) state this as a fact. Do we really know that? (well, it was on the radio so it must be true :))

News radio owned by Temasek Holdings, a Govt linked company that is also the largest shareholder of SIA.

The flight was forced to turn back to Singapore after an engine oil warning message, SIA said in a statement.

Pax on board to the national newspaper:
“The pilot said he was going to turn back because the engine is leaking oil on the right side. The captain said that they cannot turn on that side of the engine or else the plane will be vibrating. And they can’t fly like this to Milan…That’s why they turned back,” she said.
I found the edit signature button
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:31 am

FredrikHAD wrote:
Some of the oil must have ended up on the runway when things started breaking. Someone mentioned 35 l of oil in that engine type. If most of that oil ended up on the wing, I might believe it, but I would expect most of the oil to end up on the runway. Hard to tell, but I'd be surprised if it was only some 20 liters of engine oil in that fire.


What I heard was they returned to SIN due low oil quantity indication. That would suggest most of the oil was lost in flight. Oil that is exposed to the airflow will tend to spread thin and migrate to areas out of the airflow or go overboard.

I would not be surprised to learn they selected reverse on landing and that provided the initial heat source. Low oil quantity does not require and engine to be shut down unless it is associated with other abnormal pressure or temperature indications.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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