Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:43 am

zeke wrote:
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.

What would aircraft performance be with one engine at idle ? They were cruising at FL170, and I remember single engine cruise for 777 is about that high.
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:56 am

kalvado wrote:
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.


But an important difference is in SFO firefighters were deployed after the crash itself.

For SQ368 firefighters were already standing by and would have direct communication with the crew even as the incident began to unfold. That's an important factor that cannot be ignored.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:01 am

kalvado wrote:
What would aircraft performance be with one engine at idle ? They were cruising at FL170, and I remember single engine cruise for 777 is about that high.


They could have also been at the level to increase fuel burn to reduce landing weight, due to traffic. With one at idle your essentially single engine anyhow.
“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

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:36 am

zeke wrote:

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.


Or possibly hot bakes.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:37 am

Given the new format it's tough to figure out if any actual, real, 777 drivers, gave their opinion. Did I miss a 777 driver giving his/her opinion on this event?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:43 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
zeke wrote:

Or possibly hot bakes.


That would surprise me as the gear swings inwards and the oil would flow towards the wingtip due to the pressure distribution.
“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

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:49 am

zeke wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
zeke wrote:

Or possibly hot bakes.


That would surprise me as the gear swings inwards and the oil would flow towards the wingtip due to the pressure distribution.



In flight but not on the ground.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:51 am

The engine lost its oil in flight, hence the reason for the diversion in the first place. You should know that low oil indication only comes on when there is only a very minor quantity left.
“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: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:38 am

TheF15Ace wrote:
kalvado wrote:
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.


But an important difference is in SFO firefighters were deployed after the crash itself.

For SQ368 firefighters were already standing by and would have direct communication with the crew even as the incident began to unfold. That's an important factor that cannot be ignored.


Which is again a valid point. Unfortunately, only ATC recording I could find is a fuel dump request long before landing.
And again - I would still consider that as a reason to deviate from baseline "evacuate upon seeing fire" approach, not as a justification for "we'll see what happens"
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:48 am

zeke wrote:
The engine lost its oil in flight, hence the reason for the diversion in the first place. You should know that low oil indication only comes on when there is only a very minor quantity left.

They were flying with low oil for what, 3 hours? Assuming oil was on wetted surfaces, not trapped somewhere deeper- wouldn't most oil be carried away by the airflow?
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1911
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:37 pm

kalvado wrote:
zeke wrote:
The engine lost its oil in flight, hence the reason for the diversion in the first place. You should know that low oil indication only comes on when there is only a very minor quantity left.

They were flying with low oil for what, 3 hours? Assuming oil was on wetted surfaces, not trapped somewhere deeper- wouldn't most oil be carried away by the airflow?


The fact it lit up the whole trailing edge makes it likely that a lot of oil was pooled in the nooks and crannies of the flaps and associated mechanisms. There's a lot of pipework, lips and shelves back there where stuff can gather...
"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
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:03 pm

kalvado wrote:
They were flying with low oil for what, 3 hours? Assuming oil was on wetted surfaces, not trapped somewhere deeper- wouldn't most oil be carried away by the airflow?


Exactly, there is no limit on flying with low quantity. It only needs action if other indications like low pressure or high temperature.
“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

Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:29 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Given the new format it's tough to figure out if any actual, real, 777 drivers, gave their opinion. Did I miss a 777 driver giving his/her opinion on this event?


Throttledhold said he is a 777 pilot and opined no evacuation should take place. I disagree with him, but won't reiterate the points. I will point out, however, that he did not cite any 777 checklists or training guidelines for fires. I think that would be one of the most important contributions 777 crew could make to the thread - clarifying what, if any guidance they are given for decision making when a fire is present.

So a lot of the discussion is based on gut reactions. A few are offering more detailed reasoning.

A few others have presented statements from past incident investigations and supporting material for quick reference handbooks that suggest evacuation should be the default decision anytime fire is suspected, while others have called into question whether their sources should be considered both universal and a final authority.

I accept that they are not the final authority in such incidents, but still dislike going against something a QRH or related document indicates without a reason that can be clearly articulated - hence, I'm pretty interested to hear if crew interviews bring up a solid point that changes my opinion that an evacuation should have taken place.
 
na
Posts: 9812
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:42 pm

Any news about the extent of the damage of the 77W?

If assumed its a leased plane, is SQ forced to keep it should it be repaired? Its 10 years old and the second-oldest 77W in the fleet, likely not too long from being returned to the lessor anyway.
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:18 pm

zeke wrote:
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).

zeke wrote:
I am very disappointed with your comments.

Oh no - my life is over... ;)
zeke wrote:
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).

Neither you, nor I, nor the crew during that fire, have any way to know the answer to most of those questions.
My observations were not predicated on any 'amount' of fuel .
And I would remind you, I'm talking about fuel in the fire sense, meaning combustible material, not "jet - a"
zeke wrote:
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.

Anecdotal data about other circumstances, like many of the comparisons people are making, is of minimal value to a crew trying to make decisions based on observed fire behavior during an emergency.

In Wildland Firefighting there is a what is known as the standard firefighting orders. (They are not 'orders' in the legal sense, but guidelines).
#3 is of particular interest. Yes, Zeke, I know this is not a wildland fire - but the intent of the orders applies to all fires.

  1. Keep informed on fire weather conditions and forecasts.
  2. Know what your fire is doing at all times.
  3. Base all actions on current and expected behavior of the fire.
  4. Identify escape routes and safety zones and make them known.
  5. Post lookouts when there is possible danger.
  6. Be alert. Keep calm. Think clearly. Act decisively.
  7. Maintain prompt communications with your forces, your supervisor, and adjoining forces.
  8. Give clear instructions and ensure they are understood.
  9. Maintain control of your forces at all times.
  10. Fight fire aggressively, having provided for safety first.
The point here is that saying "I once saw "blah blah blah"" is not proper decision making. Experience and history informs your decision, but unless you are a lawyer using a "precedent", it does not make your decision.
zeke wrote:
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.

Oh - were you one of the crew? You speak as if you were.
You have no idea, nor do I, what they actually did.
I didn't propose any actions, attribute any actions to anybody, or state conclusions. I specifically said as much. I did provide my insight on how that video made me feel.
zeke wrote:
Please keep the thread practical and civil.

I believe I did and find this insulting.
rcair1
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:45 pm

rcair1 wrote:
zeke wrote:
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.

Oh - were you one of the crew? You speak as if you were.
You have no idea, nor do I, what they actually did.
I didn't propose any actions, attribute any actions to anybody, or state conclusions. I specifically said as much. I did provide my insight on how that video made me feel.


Briefing the cabin crew is a normal procedure whenever something out of the ordinary happens.

If the flight crew requested emergency services be standing by upon their arrival, it is obvious that they also communicated with the cabin crew and told them to be prepared for a less than normal landing.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:56 pm

TheF15Ace wrote:
rcair1 wrote:
zeke wrote:
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.

Oh - were you one of the crew? You speak as if you were.
You have no idea, nor do I, what they actually did.
I didn't propose any actions, attribute any actions to anybody, or state conclusions. I specifically said as much. I did provide my insight on how that video made me feel.


Briefing the cabin crew is a normal procedure whenever something out of the ordinary happens.

If the flight crew requested emergency services be standing by upon their arrival, it is obvious that they also communicated with the cabin crew and told them to be prepared for a less than normal landing.


Let's think what could be in that briefing.
According to short ATC conversation available, they did not request any special assistance. Nothing to brief here.
-Firefighters will meet for procedural emergency. OK
What else? "stay alert, be prepared to act in case of emergency"? Or anything specific?
-
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:01 am

rcair1 wrote:
Neither you, nor I, nor the crew during that fire, have any way to know the answer to most of those questions.
My observations were not predicated on any 'amount' of fuel .
And I would remind you, I'm talking about fuel in the fire sense, meaning combustible material, not "jet - a"


It's not the first time for that type to divert with low quantity, I am aware of over half dozen times. It is not the first time either for that airline. The aircraft manufacturers do publish fire fighting manuals for each type to inform fire crews of the location of fuel and other hazards. Fire fighters would know the risk 35l of oil would present. The airline also knows with the loss of engine oil the amount of cleaning they needed on previous events.

rcair1 wrote:
Anecdotal data about other circumstances, like many of the comparisons people are making, is of minimal value to a crew trying to make decisions based on observed fire behavior during an emergency.


That is exactly what you are doing as well with your wildfires.

rcair1 wrote:
Oh - were you one of the crew? You speak as if you were.
You have no idea, nor do I, what they actually did.


Let's just assume I do know not only what the SOP is at that airline, I know they follow their SOP.

rcair1 wrote:
I believe I did and find this insulting.


Comments like "Oh no -my life is over" is exactly what I was getting at.
“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
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:02 am

kalvado wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
rcair1 wrote:

Oh - were you one of the crew? You speak as if you were.
You have no idea, nor do I, what they actually did.
I didn't propose any actions, attribute any actions to anybody, or state conclusions. I specifically said as much. I did provide my insight on how that video made me feel.


Briefing the cabin crew is a normal procedure whenever something out of the ordinary happens.

If the flight crew requested emergency services be standing by upon their arrival, it is obvious that they also communicated with the cabin crew and told them to be prepared for a less than normal landing.


Let's think what could be in that briefing.
According to short ATC conversation available, they did not request any special assistance. Nothing to brief here.
-Firefighters will meet for procedural emergency. OK
What else? "stay alert, be prepared to act in case of emergency"? Or anything specific?
-


I cannot speak for SQ but at my airline we would say the issue is with the right hand engine just so that cabin crew will be a bit more cautious with the doors closest to the starboard wing. Also with the information available at that time expect a normal landing.

Other than that "Stay alert, be prepared to act in an emergency'' sounds about right. At that point cabin crew would refer to their own emergency training and procedures.
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:04 am

TheF15Ace wrote:
kalvado wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:

Briefing the cabin crew is a normal procedure whenever something out of the ordinary happens.

If the flight crew requested emergency services be standing by upon their arrival, it is obvious that they also communicated with the cabin crew and told them to be prepared for a less than normal landing.


Let's think what could be in that briefing.
According to short ATC conversation available, they did not request any special assistance. Nothing to brief here.
-Firefighters will meet for procedural emergency. OK
What else? "stay alert, be prepared to act in case of emergency"? Or anything specific?
-


I am not familiar with SQ's briefing in such a situation but most pilots will keep the cabin crew updated on the fault and how it is being handled. At the same time cabin crew will rely on their own emergency training and procedures.
Last edited by TheF15Ace on Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:10 am

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Given the new format it's tough to figure out if any actual, real, 777 drivers, gave their opinion. Did I miss a 777 driver giving his/her opinion on this event?


7BOEING7 was a Boeing test pilot and 777 driver. He was a pilot on the 777-200LR distance record flight from HKG-LHR the long way, as well as the MH 777-200ER SEA-KUL record setting non-stop delivery flight IIRC. He has provided a lot of valuable insights about the 777, and other planes, in these forums.
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
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:55 am

In one of the videos, the one showing the crew telling passengers to move forward from the area in front of the wing you can hear the ping that I always guessed means that the crew were contacting the cabin crew to relay information. At least someone always answers the phone when it happens on my flights so there was communication between the crew during the incident. It may not have been the pilots contacting the cabin crew and could have been from the front of the cabin crew contacting the back, but it showed there was communication between the crew during the incident.
 
infinit
Topic Author
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:43 am

Here's one for you fire experts that are so certain the crew should have evacuated to bust..

Someone close to the source of the matter told me the cabin crew considered an emergency evacuation but decided against because of the fact that the fire was burning on fluids there were leaking, possibly spreading over the tarmac, and there was no way to ensure that would not happen i.e. that information was impossible to obtain in that circumstance. So had they evacuated, they may have slid down into flamable liquids and people may have have actually caught fire.

Oh and to the poster who very early on decided that the crew of ASIAN carriers are good at serving cocktails but not at emergency situations, remember that all SQ males (which typically form 40% of the cabin crew on SQ despite their "Singapore Girl" ads) go through 2 years of mandatory conscription. That'd be with the military, police or the fire fighters, so they definitely would have at least some acumen for dealing with a crisis.

Or does that all not matter since they are Asian and Asians afterall simply cannot manage crisis situations right? *eyeroll*
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:56 am

infinit wrote:
Here's one for you fire experts that are so certain the crew should have evacuated to bust..

Someone close to the source of the matter told me the cabin crew considered an emergency evacuation but decided against because of the fact that the fire was burning on fluids there were leaking, possibly spreading over the tarmac, and there was no way to ensure that would not happen i.e. that information was impossible to obtain in that circumstance. So had they evacuated, they may have slid down into flamable liquids and people may have have actually caught fire.


Very very shaky. British Airtours flight 28M. Those who survived did so because they evacuated despite furning flammable fluids.
Quoting FAA "lessons learned" (sic!):
There was no capability on the airplane to mitigate or eliminate the associated hazards [due to large fuel leak], leaving the airplane completely dependent on airport crash, fire, and rescue responses, a timely evacuation, and design/certification measures intended to limit the flammability of airplane materials and structure.


infinit wrote:
Oh and to the poster who very early on decided that the crew of ASIAN carriers are good at serving cocktails but not at emergency situations, remember that all SQ males (which typically form 40% of the cabin crew on SQ despite their "Singapore Girl" ads) go through 2 years of mandatory conscription. That'd be with the military, police or the fire fighters, so they definitely would have at least some acumen for dealing with a crisis.

Or does that all not matter since they are Asian and Asians afterall simply cannot manage crisis situations right? *eyeroll*

Just stop that. I am comparing accidents with Qantas, Asiana, british tour operator and looking at US carrier - Dynamics 405 for next round - as comparable cases. As for mistakes leading and contributing to previous accidents, they are identified so that such mistakes can be avoided in future, not for some overly politically correct individuals to roll their eyes. Yes, cultural factors ("nonstandard communication and coordination" as NTSB called it) were significant factor in Asiana accident. Any doubt about that?

As for "good for serving drinks"... I often recommend Rogers commission report on Challenger space shuttle as a very useful reading to those in any technical field. You would be surprised how many of exact same mistakes are repeated in other fields all over the world. Non-space, non-aviation, non-US, non-English speakers.... Humans are the same, mistakes are the same. And no, moral of the story is not that NASA engineers are only good for serving drinks... Moral is that we should learn from failures regardless of who made that mistake.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:58 pm

This incident after reports are in is likely to be significant. Cases for evacuation and against are interesting and even compelling. My instincts would be to go with the airplane crews' guidance. I do wish the discussion were more polite, all posters should want to learn from this incident. I don't think that ever before we have seen quite this set of circumstances.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:50 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
This incident after reports are in is likely to be significant. Cases for evacuation and against are interesting and even compelling. My instincts would be to go with the airplane crews' guidance. I do wish the discussion were more polite, all posters should want to learn from this incident. I don't think that ever before we have seen quite this set of circumstances.

One of the issues discussed earlier is that a non-fatal non-injury accident may be swept under carpet. Unless Boeing and/or GE insist on full investigation - but their interest may be limited to what happened on the wing, not inside the cabin..
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:09 pm

kalvado wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
This incident after reports are in is likely to be significant. Cases for evacuation and against are interesting and even compelling. My instincts would be to go with the airplane crews' guidance. I do wish the discussion were more polite, all posters should want to learn from this incident. I don't think that ever before we have seen quite this set of circumstances.

One of the issues discussed earlier is that a non-fatal non-injury accident may be swept under carpet. Unless Boeing and/or GE insist on full investigation - but their interest may be limited to what happened on the wing, not inside the cabin..


Can you provide a reason as to why you think a thorough investigation will not take place?
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:33 pm

TheF15Ace wrote:
kalvado wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
This incident after reports are in is likely to be significant. Cases for evacuation and against are interesting and even compelling. My instincts would be to go with the airplane crews' guidance. I do wish the discussion were more polite, all posters should want to learn from this incident. I don't think that ever before we have seen quite this set of circumstances.

One of the issues discussed earlier is that a non-fatal non-injury accident may be swept under carpet. Unless Boeing and/or GE insist on full investigation - but their interest may be limited to what happened on the wing, not inside the cabin..


Can you provide a reason as to why you think a thorough investigation will not take place?

Maybe same reason as why AAIB is dragging their feet with SQ836 report - dual engine problem on a ETOPS twinjet?
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:09 pm

kalvado wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
kalvado wrote:
One of the issues discussed earlier is that a non-fatal non-injury accident may be swept under carpet. Unless Boeing and/or GE insist on full investigation - but their interest may be limited to what happened on the wing, not inside the cabin..


Can you provide a reason as to why you think a thorough investigation will not take place?

Maybe same reason as why AAIB is dragging their feet with SQ836 report - dual engine problem on a ETOPS twinjet?


An interim report was released on 16th May 2016. A full report will not be released till they have completed the investigation.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:43 pm

TheF15Ace wrote:
kalvado wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:

Can you provide a reason as to why you think a thorough investigation will not take place?

Maybe same reason as why AAIB is dragging their feet with SQ836 report - dual engine problem on a ETOPS twinjet?


An interim report was released on 16th May 2016. A full report will not be released till they have completed the investigation.

One year to produce 1 page interim report. Do you expect full report before statue of limitations kicks in?
FOr comparison, full OZ214 report was releazed in less than 1 year, QF32 detailed interim report was done in less than a month and associated engine inspections started immediately..
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:15 pm

kalvado wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Maybe same reason as why AAIB is dragging their feet with SQ836 report - dual engine problem on a ETOPS twinjet?


An interim report was released on 16th May 2016. A full report will not be released till they have completed the investigation.

One year to produce 1 page interim report. Do you expect full report before statue of limitations kicks in?
FOr comparison, full OZ214 report was releazed in less than 1 year, QF32 detailed interim report was done in less than a month and associated engine inspections started immediately..


The report for US 427 took more than 4 1/2 years. Was the NTSB dragging it's feet too?

Unlike you the AAIB has to conduct an actual investigation. They don't have the luxury of sitting of behind a keyboard and jumping conclusions.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:06 pm

TheF15Ace wrote:
kalvado wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:

An interim report was released on 16th May 2016. A full report will not be released till they have completed the investigation.

One year to produce 1 page interim report. Do you expect full report before statue of limitations kicks in?
FOr comparison, full OZ214 report was releazed in less than 1 year, QF32 detailed interim report was done in less than a month and associated engine inspections started immediately..


The report for US 427 took more than 4 1/2 years. Was the NTSB dragging it's feet too?

Unlike you the AAIB has to conduct an actual investigation. They don't have the luxury of sitting of behind a keyboard and jumping conclusions.

and in US427 case first batch of safety recommendations was out within 6 months, as far as I understand they didn't do interim reports back then.
And AAIB is probably still busy investigating two puzzling A-380 accidents from 2013: IFE screen smoke and runway excursion.
Do you think those will beat 4.5 years US427 took?
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:14 pm

kalvado wrote:
and in US427 case first batch of safety recommendations was out within 6 months, as far as I understand they didn't do interim reports back then.
And AAIB is probably still busy investigating two puzzling A-380 accidents from 2013: IFE screen smoke and runway excursion.
Do you think those will beat 4.5 years US427 took?



But you haven't answered his question. Were they also dragging their feet by taking that long to release the report? Or will you concede that sometimes investigations take time?
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:05 pm

enzo011 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
and in US427 case first batch of safety recommendations was out within 6 months, as far as I understand they didn't do interim reports back then.
And AAIB is probably still busy investigating two puzzling A-380 accidents from 2013: IFE screen smoke and runway excursion.
Do you think those will beat 4.5 years US427 took?



But you haven't answered his question. Were they also dragging their feet by taking that long to release the report? Or will you concede that sometimes investigations take time?


I would conclude that challenging investigation including collection and rearrangement of zillion post-crash pieces with interim results published along the way is way different from the situation when FDR are available to be read after safe landing.
However thank you for making me read about SQ836 in more details. Now that start to look as a pattern at SQ - do nothing to address the incident and hope for the best. I need to sniff through some other SQ accidents to see if that really the case...
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 13320
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:34 am

kalvado wrote:
However thank you for making me read about SQ836 in more details. Now that start to look as a pattern at SQ - do nothing to address the incident and hope for the best. I need to sniff through some other SQ accidents to see if that really the case...


Well now that your bias has been laid bare under that thinly-veiled sarcasm, we can give the rest of what you say its due low credit.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:43 am

Aaron747 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
However thank you for making me read about SQ836 in more details. Now that start to look as a pattern at SQ - do nothing to address the incident and hope for the best. I need to sniff through some other SQ accidents to see if that really the case...


Well now that your bias has been laid bare under that thinly-veiled sarcasm, we can give the rest of what you say its due low credit.


Well, looks like this would be at least a separate thread - if not NYT article. I had a way better impression of SQ... But the more I dig, the more that stinks.
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:06 am

kalvado wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
and in US427 case first batch of safety recommendations was out within 6 months, as far as I understand they didn't do interim reports back then.
And AAIB is probably still busy investigating two puzzling A-380 accidents from 2013: IFE screen smoke and runway excursion.
Do you think those will beat 4.5 years US427 took?



But you haven't answered his question. Were they also dragging their feet by taking that long to release the report? Or will you concede that sometimes investigations take time?


I would conclude that challenging investigation including collection and rearrangement of zillion post-crash pieces with interim results published along the way is way different from the situation when FDR are available to be read after safe landing.
However thank you for making me read about SQ836 in more details. Now that start to look as a pattern at SQ - do nothing to address the incident and hope for the best. I need to sniff through some other SQ accidents to see if that really the case...


The ET 788 that caught fire at LHR, did not break into a ''zillion pieces''. AAIB took 2 years to release the final report. Did the AAIB drag their feet?
 
kalvado
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:33 pm

A lot to say about SQ accident reports by AAIB. I got a 2850 symbol text written with some analysis, still writing.
I am debating with myself if I should post it as a separate thread or e-mail to someone like John Carreyrou - you know, WSJ investigative journalist who busted Theranos.
And no, I never been in Singapore, I never applied for airline or travel industry job (well - if you don't count NASA as such), and my aviation interest is purely backseat driver's one.
 
jimmysg
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:52 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:47 am

TheF15Ace wrote:
kalvado wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:

Can you provide a reason as to why you think a thorough investigation will not take place?

Maybe same reason as why AAIB is dragging their feet with SQ836 report - dual engine problem on a ETOPS twinjet?


An interim report was released on 16th May 2016. A full report will not be released till they have completed the investigation.


That one-page interim report - which took one year to complete - contains fewer details than Airbus notifications sent to operators only days after the event - you can search for that A333 Singapore-Shanghai incident in this forum or avherald. If that's not dragging the feet, what is? In fact, it is more than dragging the feet, the interim report with one-year-effort even misses out some important details in the few-days-effort Airbus notifications, for example, nacelle anti ice off, failed restart at FL370... Why?
 
jimmysg
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:52 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:53 am

kalvado wrote:
A lot to say about SQ accident reports by AAIB. I got a 2850 symbol text written with some analysis, still writing.
I am debating with myself if I should post it as a separate thread or e-mail to someone like John Carreyrou - you know, WSJ investigative journalist who busted Theranos.
And no, I never been in Singapore, I never applied for airline or travel industry job (well - if you don't count NASA as such), and my aviation interest is purely backseat driver's one.


I think it would be the right thing to email to some journalists, please refer to my above post, I looked into the incidents about the A333 dual engines problem, and had some serious doubts about the way Singapore AAIB and SIA handles the past incidents, and no journalists in Singapore seem to care, they are not used to expose government or government linked companies' mistakes, I guess...
For the interest of better aviation safety, quality journalists' investigation and publications are always needed.
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:19 am

jimmysg wrote:
kalvado wrote:
A lot to say about SQ accident reports by AAIB. I got a 2850 symbol text written with some analysis, still writing.
I am debating with myself if I should post it as a separate thread or e-mail to someone like John Carreyrou - you know, WSJ investigative journalist who busted Theranos.
And no, I never been in Singapore, I never applied for airline or travel industry job (well - if you don't count NASA as such), and my aviation interest is purely backseat driver's one.


I think it would be the right thing to email to some journalists, please refer to my above post, I looked into the incidents about the A333 dual engines problem, and had some serious doubts about the way Singapore AAIB and SIA handles the past incidents, and no journalists in Singapore seem to care, they are not used to expose government or government linked companies' mistakes, I guess...
For the interest of better aviation safety, quality journalists' investigation and publications are always needed.


By all means you guys should contact the press and get started on this. Since things are so bad an investigation should definitely conducted on both the AAIB and FAA. Please keep me updated on your progress.
 
SQTZBD
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:34 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:46 am

kalvado wrote:
A lot to say about SQ accident reports by AAIB. I got a 2850 symbol text written with some analysis, still writing.
I am debating with myself if I should post it as a separate thread or e-mail to someone like John Carreyrou - you know, WSJ investigative journalist who busted Theranos.
And no, I never been in Singapore, I never applied for airline or travel industry job (well - if you don't count NASA as such), and my aviation interest is purely backseat driver's one.


I'm not sure if I can be of any help in this matter, but if you would PM me I can share you with something. Probably, you already are quite aware of the information.

Sorry, I've been a lurker on A.net for over 8 years but never posted. Just a few seconds ago I registered here to send you a PM and learned that new users can't send those messages.
 
SQTZBD
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:34 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:15 am

As a frequent passenger on SIA flights (and a SIA fan boy in the past), I'm increasingly concerned about the awkward decision making process of some of the pilots. There were quite a few incidents in the recent past with SIA which could draw some ire.

Another cargo hold fire on a SIA Airbus A333 from WSSS to VGHS resulted in some sort of indecision from the flight crew, which Singapore AAIB addressed in their final report.

And during the past five years, there has been several runway excursions. And that flight to ZSPD is well known to this community.

I'll be feeling quite uneasy to fly SIA for the time being. It's one of the very best in the world in terms of services though.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:23 am

Has the AAIIB (Airliners.net Aviation Incident Investigation Board) published their report and recommendations yet??? :)

SQTZBD wrote:
I'll be feeling quite uneasy to fly SIA for the time being.


Sorry to hear that.

Staying inside your home and locking all of the doors and windows might be best for you.
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
 
Lofty
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:23 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:04 am

You can have plans and manuals but a lot of the decisions are based on the information the flight crew have available to them for example:
1. You land you shut down, you can see fire crews already around your a/c and a set of steps heading for door 1.
2. You land you shut down, you can only see in the distance blue lights and no information on how long steps will take.

In number 1 your decision to evacuate using slides is less likely than in 2.
 
SQTZBD
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:34 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:54 pm

777Jet wrote:
Has the AAIIB (Airliners.net Aviation Incident Investigation Board) published their report and recommendations yet??? :)

SQTZBD wrote:
I'll be feeling quite uneasy to fly SIA for the time being.


Sorry to hear that.

Staying inside your home and locking all of the doors and windows might be best for you.


Sir, I don't know you. Probably you're a Boeing 777 pilot.

But let me state that I do not have "that fear" of flying. And yes yes yes, before any of the A.netters say it again, I know, rate of aviation accidents are statistically insignificant to any other passenger transport accidents.

I'm also not a member of your sarcastic AAIIB (Airliners.net Aviation Incident Investigation Board). I haven't even speculated anything about this particular SIA flight.

I'm quite fond of flying and whenever I get the chance I take to a aerodrome to "practice" flying with an instructor (I'll be getting a private pilot's licence hopefully in the near future). So definitely my "uneasy feeling" doesn't stem from a "fear of flying" to that extent that I might need to stay inside my home and lock the doors & windows.


My "uneasy feeling" about SIA has derived from the fact that there are too many "coincidences" involving a small city-state, its government (Temasek Holdings) owned airline, its "benevolent dictatorship" status and "people feeling afraid to even speak out". You know the fears of getting caned for doing ridiculously minor offences is quite common here. Suppression of information is, nowadays, performed not by the government, but by the press itself. This self-censorship, "willing to defend any national symbol of pride (including SIA) at any cost" create a somewhat toxic concoction.


Coincidences:

Ask any knowledgeable Singaporean about the Taipei accident? Majority will blame the "Malaysian" captain! Yes the layout and primitiveness (no functioning ground radar) of the then (previously known as) Chiang Kai-Shek airport in Taipei caused a lot of confusion according to many other pilots interviewed by the media. But the "disagreement" between AAIB of Singapore and ASC of Taiwan is still quite much to my laymen's eyes.

Then there's the case of SilkAir's apparent pilot suicide. NTSB, in their final report, said that it was a pilot suicide. Indonesia's NTSC completely went 180* and said "the causes could not be determined". Rumors were that 1. NTSC didn't want Indonesians to fear to fly and 2. AAIB of Singapore worked alongside NTSC and they both decided to keep their mouth shut.

Then there's the Auckland incident.

Handling of cargo hold fire in VTBS (flight from WSSS to VGHS) and the AAIB of Singapore's "points worth discussing" in their final report.

Recent spate of runway excursions (not severe though) in Munich, Yangon and in Singapore.


No, I'm not an aviation accident investigator. Nor am I an airline pilot. But don't you think that there are too many coincidences with SIA in the recent past which could make some people feel "uneasy"?


Compare the above incidents and accidents with SIA's biggest competitor CPA. Yes some incidents are inevitable for sure, but still there are a trail of worrying incidents involving SIA.


And THAT'S WHY I said "I'll be feeling quite uneasy to fly SIA for the time being". Please note the phrase "for the time being."
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:28 pm

An interim report has been released, pointing out three key findings:

- Fuel was found in the oil system of the right engine, which is not a normal condition.
- This was the result of a crack in a tube in the engine’s main fuel oil heat exchanger.
- The affected engine had last undergone an engine shop visit in March 2014, before GE Aviation issued a service bulletin in December 2014.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... at-428061/
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2380
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:34 pm

Is it normal for a service bulletin to not be retroactively applied?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:00 pm

Most service bulletins do not need to be implemented immediately.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
NG263
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:10 pm

Re: SQ 368 engine catches fire

Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:40 pm

Will this aircraft be repaired? I do hope so but SQ has proven in the past to phase out aircraft that jare between 10-15 years old. Also this is the oldest 777-300ER in their fleet.
Anyone got any info on that?
  • 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