SIA 777 on fire

[Downunder]

A bit of a side question, but are airline pilots given safety briefs about incidents involving other airlines before the public?

 

Perhaps with info not readily available to the media.

 

An internal "industry" sort of thing.....

 

 

[dutchroll]

A bit of a side question, but are airline pilots given safety briefs about incidents involving other airlines before the public?Perhaps with info not readily available to the media.

An internal "industry" sort of thing.....

Not formally. There's no internal aviation industry mechanism to get accident investigation information before it's released to the public. However we have a better "grapevine" than the public does by virtue of relationships with staff at other airlines.

These incidents are often analysed by our own safety and training departments when the investigations are complete to see whether there might be pertinent lessons for us. That can lead to training or assessment modules inserted into recurrent simulator sessions.

 

 

[facthunter]

Boeing run/approve the content of a lot of Customer Airline simulator programmes and have a strong influence on what the LATEST incident/accident response will be and have training requirements upgraded as thought necessary. I presume Airbus are similar. It happens pretty quickly through the world network when something critical happens. Often it's retraining the affected airline but the info goes out world wide. The idea is to learn by mistakes made.Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

I was also scratching my head about the evacuation delay but figured that wiser people than me knew the reasons for it. Now it appears that at least a couple of people with far more experience in commercial aviation also can't understand the delay. Looking forward to hearing the reasons.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I can understand holding off an evacuation order for a wheel brake fire, or a fire contained in the hot end of an engine, or a couple of other scenarios. Once the Captain gives the order, there's no way to cancel it so the decision is not taken lightly.

 

But I can't for the life of me work out what happened here when photos and video show a substantial spread of flames and everyone stayed on board until it was extinguished. As has already been mentioned, evacuation delays and indecision have led to fatalities in the past.

 

 

[Pearo]

I can understand holding off an evacuation order for a wheel brake fire, or a fire contained in the hot end of an engine, or a couple of other scenarios. Once the Captain gives the order, there's no way to cancel it so the decision is not taken lightly.But I can't for the life of me work out what happened here when photos and video show a substantial spread of flames and everyone stayed on board until it was extinguished. As has already been mentioned, evacuation delays and indecision have led to fatalities in the past.

Everytime I have been on a commercial jet I cant really see much outside. However when I am outside the jet, I can see lots. Its ok for people to pass judgement on the pilots, but no one else was there. Maybe they did make the wrong call, but it's equally possible that they made the correct call. I thought as pilots most here would have the ability to reserve judgement until the facts are known. Its also possible that there was a breakdown in commmunication between cabin crew and flight crew?

 

The real question should be why did it take the fireies 5 minutes to get there. Not the first time this has been an issue. Its possible that this is also a fault of the pilots, but its possible they were not aware of the situation.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Everytime I have been on a commercial jet I cant really see much outside. However when I am outside the jet, I can see lots. Its ok for people to pass judgement on the pilots, but no one else was there. Maybe they did make the wrong call, but it's equally possible that they made the correct call. I thought as pilots most here would have the ability to reserve judgement until the facts are known. Its also possible that there was a breakdown in commmunication between cabin crew and flight crew?

The pilots can't see much, however the crew are trained to be having a good look outside their door windows in situations like this and they are stationed all the way down both sides of the fuselage. Also the tower can see plenty. This is stuff you train for all the time in the sim.

 

• The pilots must have known there was a fire, as emergency services were called.
   
   
  
• In addition to any fire indications in the cockpit, we would use ATC and the cabin crew to ascertain the extent of the fire. Most likely in a 2 pilot scenario the Captain would himself communicate with one of those sides and delegate the F/O to communicate to the other, or get the F/O and the 3rd pilot (if carried) to communicate with those people if they were a heavy crew.
   
   
  
• After getting all the information there would be a quick assessment of the potential severity.
   
   
  
• The mere mention from either that there were significant flames or smoke spreading around the wing would likely be enough to justify an evac.
   
   
  
• Yes it is one possibility that there was a breakdown in communication between cabin and cockpit, or ATC and the cockpit, or even both.
   
   
  

 

 

I'm not blaming any side in particular but it does seem that a ground evac was fully warranted from the outside. The question is, did the information on the extent of the flames get to the pilots? If not, why not? If it did, how did they arise at their decision? Was it downplayed? Was it conflicting or confusing? The investigation will hopefully answer these, but to me personally this scenario is puzzling. It's dangerous territory when the fire is not contained, as it clearly wasn't.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

You have to wander if the cost of an emergency evacuation and legal costs resulting from possible minor passenger injuries influences company policy. The Singapore culture of employees going the extra mile for their company may also influence decisions. To me the greatest worry is if the mind set is, "the outcome was good so the decision was good". I hope this does not influence other pilots when deciding whether or not to order an evacuation. I'm not sure that if I was on that aircraft that I would have been able to stay on board for that long.

 

Personally, from information available to me, good luck played a large part of this good outcome. It will be interesting to see the outcome of any investigation if it is ever made public.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Possible me either, but footage from inside the cabin had everyone sitting quietly and seemingly relaxed, their inflight service is either really really good or their coffee is the best ever, but to sit quietly while that was going on outside and waiting for stairs to arrive, is a credit to the cabin staff's ability to keep things calm, overall a good outcome.

My guess is they put on free booze for all the pax hence why no one wanted to get off

 

 

[facthunter]

It will come out. A plane on fire is not something you spend any more time on than you have to. Nev

 

 

[Pearo]

The pilots can't see much, however the crew are trained to be having a good look outside their door windows in situations like this and they are stationed all the way down both sides of the fuselage. Also the tower can see plenty. This is stuff you train for all the time in the sim.

• The pilots must have known there was a fire, as emergency services were called.
   
   
  
• In addition to any fire indications in the cockpit, we would use ATC and the cabin crew to ascertain the extent of the fire. Most likely in a 2 pilot scenario the Captain would himself communicate with one of those sides and delegate the F/O to communicate to the other, or get the F/O and the 3rd pilot (if carried) to communicate with those people if they were a heavy crew.
   
   
  
• After getting all the information there would be a quick assessment of the potential severity.
   
   
  
• The mere mention from either that there were significant flames or smoke spreading around the wing would likely be enough to justify an evac.
   
   
  
• Yes it is one possibility that there was a breakdown in communication between cabin and cockpit, or ATC and the cockpit, or even both.
   
   
  

 

 

I'm not blaming any side in particular but it does seem that a ground evac was fully warranted from the outside. The question is, did the information on the extent of the flames get to the pilots? If not, why not? If it did, how did they arise at their decision? Was it downplayed? Was it conflicting or confusing? The investigation will hopefully answer these, but to me personally this scenario is puzzling. It's dangerous territory when the fire is not contained, as it clearly wasn't.

The pilots had an engine oil alert and decide to turn back and land, that is all we know. Anything further is pure speculation.

 

 

[dutchroll]

The pilots had an engine oil alert and decide to turn back and land, that is all we know. Anything further is pure speculation.

That's not quite all we know.

We know the aircraft cabin filled with fumes in flight after the oil leak.

 

We know the aircraft caught fire upon landing, with fire spreading along the entire length of the right wing.

 

We know that fire did not self-extinguish. It continued to burn until put out by emergency services.

 

We know the passengers remained on board through all of this.

 

We know the fire caused severe damage.

 

 

 

[Pearo]

That's not quite all we know.We know the aircraft cabin filled with fumes in flight after the oil leak.

 

We know the aircraft caught fire upon landing, with fire spreading along the entire length of the right wing.

 

We know that fire did not self-extinguish. It continued to burn until put out by emergency services.

 

We know the passengers remained on board through all of this.

 

We know the fire caused severe damage.

 

[ATTACH=full]44027[/ATTACH]

We know NOW. Big difference. Did the pilots know all of this at the time?

 

This ATC recording suggest they were unaware of how serious the issue was at the time.

 

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

For those of you that don't fly airliners, we have big sliding windows in the cockpit that we use in an evacuation if we can't get out through the flight deck door for some reason, they are also great to open & have a sticky beak out of to visually assess whats happening, in this case thick black smoke & huge flames may of changed their minds to act & evacuate.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Nothing in that ATC conversation surprises me, though the last part of the transcript is wrong - therein lie the problems with getting these things off the web. There is absolutely no way on earth that Butterworth Control can clear SQ368 to land prior to a hand-off to Lumpur Radar. Absolutely not possible. I suspect the controller said something to the effect of "ok then, Singapore 368 contact Lumpur Radar 132.8". Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a landing clearance as they are over Malaysian airspace there heading south near Penang/Butterworth and have several more agencies to go through before they get to Singapore Tower.

 

The fire did not break out in flight, but upon landing. With major leaks of any description including oil, fuel or hydraulic, this would (should!) not be unexpected by any crew. This type of scenario is discussed dozens of times over during training sessions. Big leaks from around engine pods or the inner wing section where vital valves and plumbing for these services are, also happen to be in close vicinity to wheel wells and thus wheel brakes. I know for our own company and I assume for many others too, it's just improbable given that they knew it was a big leak that they would not discuss or at least mention this possibility prior to landing and have a heightened awareness of it. We'd get our a*se caned in the simulator for not mentioning that at the very least. Although there might not be much you could do about it in flight, you will be all psyched up to rapidly gather as much information as possible in the eventuality that a fire of some type does start on landing.

 

This particular segment of ATC comms stops well before landing and way before they even talk to any Singapore control agencies at all. So the vital communication both during their approach and upon landing after the fire broke out between ATC and the crew is not available. That communication is where we would be able to determine who was aware of what, so this tape tells us nothing much at all unfortunately.

 

One more thing: I have read discussion online from people saying "well maybe the safest course of action was to keep the passengers on board". That might be true in the case of a garden-variety wheel brake fire, but this argument doesn't hold up under the circumstances. An unextinguished fire spreading along the length of a wing which also contains many thousands of kilograms of fuel (even with fuel dumping) is not a scenario which justifies a "safer staying on board" conclusion. Unless of course they were unaware of the extent of the fire, which is of course a possibility. Then the question becomes: why was this so?

 

I remain as puzzled as I was when I first saw the reports. I have suspicions about the general way things might have happened, but they are biased and I won't air them here.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I'd be interested in whether SQ have the equivalent of an "alert PA" like we do. This is what we would use in these circumstances. It is, for example, SOP after a rejected takeoff but can be used at any time and is often briefed in non normal situations. It is from the cockpit after the plane stops and goes "Attention, all passengers remain seated and await further instructions".

 

It serves two purposes:

 

1) For the passengers, it's self explanatory and (hopefully) stops them getting up.

 

2) For the crew it is a coded message. To them it means "Your pilots know there is a problem and we are gathering information to make a decision. Check outside your door windows. Report to us if you observe anything non-normal.

 

 

[vixen]

Seconds count in a fire. I would have been out the emergency exit and gone, punching the flight attendant in the nose if necessary.

As an International Flight Attendant for over 30 years I have to say:

 

1) I hope you are never on 1 of my flights - that's a despicable comment.

 

2) Being a pilot, you, more than anyone, should know the Captain calls the shots & the crew & pax follow his commands

 

3) Opening an exit (do you know the procedure & vital precautions to take?) may well have brought the fire inside (a la Manchester)

 

4) There are numerous procedures & assessments, practiced and tested ad nausea, by tech & cabin crew, that would have been made here

 

5) Almost EVERY accident / incident is different with all sorts of variables

 

6) A hasty evacuation may well have been a disaster in this case

 

7) We must wait - at least 30 days - till the prelim report is published to find out the sequence of events before jumping to conclusions

 

8) Speculation is fine, but wildly emotive responses & robust comments are inappropriate

 

9) ALWAYS follow your crew's directives - they are highly trained professionals

 

10) Mistakes may well have been made, but the bottom line is all survived unscathed (physically) - so it was a success!

 

mmmm.. that top 10 should do it for my 1st post here! Cheers

 

 

[facthunter]

An uncontrolled exit often causes many injuries and loss of life. So does failure to initiate an evacuation quickly. Welcome to the forum as a participant , Vixen. I await with some considerable interest , the inevitable investigation of this matter. Nev

 

 

[vixen]

An uncontrolled exit often causes many injuries and loss of life. So does failure to initiate an evacuation quickly. Welcome to the forum as a participant , Vixen. I await with some considerable interest , the inevitable investigation of this matter. Nev

Thank you Nev - voice of calm reason!

 

Having spent about 35,000 hours as Cabin Crew and experienced 1 or 2 near disasters & stacks of incidents, I can say most ATPs are extremely deep thinkers trying to weigh up all the parameters and possibilities, not to mention taking calls & instigating check lists, in sometimes milliseconds. Furthermore, you can have all the procedures in the world but there is often a curved ball thrown in for good measure. They use that EVAC phrase with great caution, knowing there are a million things can go wrong. It's a very brave call.

 

But for the sake of debate...

 

If I recall correctly, the Singapore Fire Station is almost slap bang where a wide body stops after landing. They possibly have the best equipment in the world. The only speculation I would therefore make is: The Fire Chief called the Skipper & advised him the whole starboard wing was ablaze & spreading, & they would be onsite in 1 minute, & recommended not to evac.

 

The pilot may have quickly done the sums - minimum 15 second engine shut down + 90 second evac, with only half the exits available, & chance a crew member may shoot off a starboard slide by mistake, versus wait for the storm troopers who would be 60 secs + 10 sec extinguish.... 70 secs v 105 seconds... waiting for fireies was quicker with possibly less risk.

 

If the above is correct imagine the outcry if he had ordered an evac (& possible disaster) when he had been advised not to!

 

Mmmm.. mayb not... maybe they simple stuffed up, but got lucky, and I will have to eat my words.

 

But as with all airline accidents, we will all be wiser in the long run. Like you, Nev, I await with intense interest.

 

 

[facthunter]

I will refrain from getting into the details, as there's not a lot of specific knowledge of it .

 

In general it's a bit unusual to not commence to evacuate if the exit is not fire affected and all the LHS was into wind. If you open an exit and fire enters the cabin it's a bad situation and best prevented by not opening that exit. When you have a pretty active fire, and extensive '(This one was probably oil not fuel) How do you know that it won't get worse rather quickly and the firies not be able to get close. The PIC or anyone making those decisions earns their money and more at those times. At the enquiry where people who are in no danger of dying take whatever time they wish, to JUDGE the actions of various participants WILL assess the thinking used, critically. The fire people have no authority over the Captain and he can't say "they" (The fire fighters) were going to guarantee any outcome as they cannot do that in absolute terms . You are putting all your eggs in one basket waiting. It's something I try to avoid in the aviation environment, as a philosophy. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

The only speculation I would therefore make is: The Fire Chief called the Skipper & advised him the whole starboard wing was ablaze & spreading, & they would be onsite in 1 minute, & recommended not to evac.

It's certainly not the fire chief's call as to whether to evacuate because he has no idea of any other factors the crew are dealing with inside. Also his idea of "one minute" might not actually be one minute, and seconds count in these cases. I've even known a fire tender to go off the taxiway and get bogged on its way to the aircraft.

 

The pilot may have quickly done the sums - minimum 15 second engine shut down + 90 second evac, with only half the exits available, & chance a crew member may shoot off a starboard slide by mistake, versus wait for the storm troopers who would be 60 secs + 10 sec extinguish.... 70 secs v 105 seconds... waiting for fireies was quicker with possibly less risk.

It's a requirement that we practice emergency landings in the simulator regularly. This involves dealing with the problem, running checklists, calling for fire services, communicating with ATC, and making the call to evacuate (or not). Although there are many variables in the way things get done, I've never heard of one running like that. We don't have time in these situations to speculate on and add up the number of seconds various things might take. It's either a dangerous enough situation with the aircraft to warrant an evacuation, or it's not.

 

 

[vixen]

It's certainly not the fire chief's call as to whether to evacuate because he has no idea of any other factors the crew are dealing with inside. Also his idea of "one minute" might not actually be one minute, and seconds count in these cases. I've even known a fire tender to go off the taxiway and get bogged on its way to the aircraft.It's a requirement that we practice emergency landings in the simulator regularly. This involves dealing with the problem, running checklists, calling for fire services, communicating with ATC, and making the call to evacuate (or not). Although there are many variables in the way things get done, I've never heard of one running like that. We don't have time in these situations to speculate on and add up the number of seconds various things might take. It's either a dangerous enough situation with the aircraft to warrant an evacuation, or it's not.

Thanks for your comments Dutchroll. (and Nev). Oh I am so aware what crew go through re sims & CASA required checks. Good on u!

 

Please note I never said the Fire Chief had the call - I said "advised", not "directed". It was just another 'variable" I chucked in. Yup, it's a Captain's call. No argument there (+ gst.)

 

And fair comment. All I have been trying to say since my 1st post is threefold:

 

1) The Skipper has to make some millisecond life or death decisions, and unfortunately that is often not the work of a moment.

 

2) He IS the Captain, and he shall be obeyed, not over ridden by some over opinionated pax, or Johnny come lately.

 

3) Speculation & debate is great imho - lets do that - but let's not make out like we know better!

 

Cheers

 

 

[dutchroll]

Fair enough. No probs.

 

I guess I was trying to say that I'd be very surprised to ever hear a fire crew recommend an evacuation, however they might well pass on info which led to that immediate decision. "Your whole right wing is on fire" would be an example.

 

Talking directly to them is also slightly more complicated than you might think and requires you to use another radio. They generally have their own frequency which you might need to get from ATC depending on where you are.

 

BTW, you are absolutely right in your first post that cabin crew instructions must be obeyed by the passengers!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I guess it is appropriate to respond by saying that despite my law-abiding nature and lack of prior convictions, if I had seen an entire wing inflames and knowing it contained large amounts of fuel I think I would have panicked to the extent of opening an emergency exit on the other side if I had been in that row, and probably fighting anyone who tried to stop me. Like the pilot , I might retrospectively been labelled a crazy panic merchant or the bloke whose cool actions saved a lot of passengers, you never know.

 

It isn't about what I think now, or what I wish I had done in retrospect, but how I would react in those few seconds. Some people sit quietly and obey orders, but I think others use their own initiative and experience. It might be described as panic by outside observers but it is self-preservation.

 

And as someone who spent too much of his life on long haul flights I have the greatest respect and gratitude for the cabin staff. Luckily I was never in that situation, just being honest.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Its called instinct pmc.