EWR764

I just don't see how we can reach this conclusion now without simply ignoring the salient facts, many of which are yet to be determined.

With respect to the fire truck issue, that was admittedly a freak accident and airport fire departments have retrained in approach and firefighting techniques to avoid escaping passengers. That's not something crewmembers should be considering in weighing their decision to evacuate.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but until proven otherwise I think crews should still err on the side of evacuating when faced with an emergency like a major fire. You don't have the benefit of hindsight in the moment... you simply cannot know for sure. Even if it turns out that this crew made a reasoned decision based on the best information available, we shouldn't posit a rule that it is always safest to remain on board under all circumstances. Each situation needs to be analyzed on its own merits with a risk assessment conducted by the crew. Finally, if aviation history has taught us anything, it's that aircrews are not infallible, and we need to carefully assess their decisionmaking in these cases to identify potentially systemic issues, if any, that can be corrected to make everyone safer.

"When in doubt, get out!"

1010101

Noone knows that yet, but given the whole wing was on fire it would be a bold call to delay evacuation.

Knowing Singapore, the fact the press are already out defending the airline suggests they're already under scrutiny.

travelingchumley

No one died, a few injuries, the right thing was done here. One thing I noticed was the fire crews approached from upwind, not from the rear nor side. It must be how they drill.

fimo

Actually I don't think the press has been defending the airline. They've acknowledged that a probe/investigation is under way, but then asked many of the questions folks have here as well, not that they have the answers, but that's about as pointed as it gets in SG. One of my friend's who is an SQ pilot was ranting on his facebook how irresponsible that article and journalist was to question anything.

boybi

Were any of the investigations regarding airplane accidents ever revealed to the public? Or the media just doesn't report the outcome of investigations, which takes months or years, because the public have lost interest on the matter?

I read the newspaper everyday and I don't seem to notice any reports regarding the cause of airplane accidents.

wolf72

I have just talked to a senior crew member on the flight (non tech) and the fumes were pretty bad on board. The crew had to distribute wet towels amongst the passengers 2 hours 15 minutes out of Singapore. The warning light came on first and the captain informed the IFS about it and then a few minutes later, the fumes and smell started to spread within the cabin and the IFS informed the captain who then initiated a turn around.

The question that also should be raised is why did the captain elect to continue flying back to Changi when he could have diverted to Phuket or KLIA international airport and gotten the aircraft down as fast as possible once the fuel leak became an issue.

wolf72

On the rational of the fire truck's going üp wind and then turning back to face the wing and engine, it was to ensure the drivers had perfect views of the front of the aircraft as they approached and had a clear shot at firing the foam at the wing in unison..two trucks side by side.

A third approached from the rear later (4 minutes after the aircraft had stopped) and began dousing the wing from the rear with foam.

It actually took longer to put the fire out than some have suggested and it took the fire team at least 3 minutes after the plane stopped to get into position and to then begin the operation..and a further minute or so till the fire started to die down..

Link:
Note; before watching the video, put the video on mute.

lingua101

I am not aviation expert, so my comment may be wrong.

I am guessing that at that point, it was only oil leakage and there was no fire. Hence returning to SIN is probably the preferable option. This will minimize the passenger inconvenience, as SIN is SQ based and they can "easily" swap the plane.


Also the plane carry a lot of fuel as they were flying to MXP. I believe this fuel need to be burned before they can land.

Hence, the choice was probably circling around PEN/KUL before they land or return to SIN which will probably burn enough fuel, so that they can land immediately.

I think the situation may be different, if the fire has already started at that point of time.

I guess being commercial pilot, they have to consider the commercial decision also, of course the safety should be the top priority. Being everything equal, then commercial decision will have to be taken.

Does anyone here know what sparks the fire when they land? Still too much fuel?

lingua101

I agree with Guy that the captain made the right decision, as there is no casualty.

The next question that need to be asked (for the sake of improvement, not punishment), were there any better decision that can be made? If yes, why the captain did not take that option? What should be the best action taken at that time.

I think this is tougher to answer, as we need to put our shoes in the captain's shoes.

lingua101

May be there was no doubt at that point of time? The captain was assured that the fire truck was on the way and should put off the fire within 1-2 minutes?

wolf72

The captain must have been in contact with the tower/ground control and obviously the fire captain once he landed and they were keeping him informed.

They are able to communicate via their headsets and on the right frequency.

1010101

I've seen a few articles deliberately praising the actions of the crew in The Straits Times and others.

Maybe it will turn out they are correct, but in my experience of SG when the press jump on the defensive of a local company/brand its for a reason.

fimo

I don't think it's realistic to expect NO acknowledgement of the fact that the incident was dealt with promptly and without casualties. Even the first FB updates and videos from passengers were positive, that's not media driven. In fact my first reaction watching the video of the fire taken from inside the plane was how could any pax remain calmly seated next to that!!

SG media has always been rah-rah about SG-branded anything. This is no different. I don't think it's about being defensive but rather a habit of positive spin and patting oneself in the back whenever something works out. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but just that's par for the course, SQ or not.

wolf72

There was panic in the economy section. You just didn't see/hear what was going on at the back. Passengers were demanding to be let off the plane and there was screaming and shouting.

Guy Betsy

UNLESS any of you are flight crew or cabin crew, you cannot just assume that the best option is to get out. Remember the safety video of any airline, that you have to listen to the instructions of the crew. The cabin crew also needs to listen to the instructions from the flight deck and they cannot just open a door just because. And neither can you. By opening a door when a fire is going on simply puts everyone else in danger.

Whilst there was a fire, the fire trucks were there on standby and they did the right thing in dousing the fire out with foam. Yes it may seem dangerous, but it was a fire that was easily contained.