BBQ at Changi......

[kpc]

I personally find the title of this thread distasteful.

 

[jb747]

Pilots will invariably treat any accident with this outcome in this way. We want it to be funny when it can be, because we understand, far better than most others, just how quickly, and badly it can go wrong. The title was chosen in that vein.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I personally find the title of this thread distasteful.

It needs to be read in context.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

I personally find the title of this thread distasteful.

Let alone the uninformed posts. The remote possibility that crew actually knew what they were doing seems to be zero relevance.

 

[Flying Fox]

Will the runway where the fire occurred require inspection / repair before SIN can use it again?

 

[anat0l]

Pilots will invariably treat any accident with this outcome in this way. We want it to be funny when it can be, because we understand, far better than most others, just how quickly, and badly it can go wrong. The title was chosen in that vein.

Would one treat QF32 or QF30 in a similar vein? If so, what were the popular pass around "titles"? If not, why not?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Let alone the uninformed posts. The remote possibility that crew actually knew what they were doing seems to be zero relevance.

Indeed - but the airline has had a significant amount of time to address the issue but has not done so. This potentially leads to speculation and a potential PR problem.

The official SQ media statement paints a fairly sanitised view:

Flight SQ368, a Boeing 777-300ER operating from Singapore to Milan, returned to Singapore on June 27 following an engine oil warning message.


The aircraft's right engine caught fire after the aircraft touched down at Changi Airport at around 6:50 a.m. The fire was put out by airport emergency services and there were no injuries to the 222 passengers and 19 crew on board.

Passengers disembarked through stairs and were transported to the terminal building by bus. Passengers will be transferred to another aircraft which is expected to depart for Milan later today.

Singapore Airlines will be co-operating fully with the authorities in their investigations.

Almost as if nothing happened.

The Singapore authorities may have placed a suppression order on SQ talking to the media (which I guess is entirely possible - I don't know Singapore's accident investigation procedures), or the airline hasn't taken account of social media which paints a potentially different story: the pictures are dramatic.

From a PR perspective this has the potential to go south.

 

[RooFlyer]

The pictures are dramatic ... but listen to the audio. No panic, no calling to get out, no screaming.

I think the most discordant thing I hear is what sounds like an Aussie accent saying something like "This is bloody inconvenient ..."

 

[jb747]

Would one treat QF32 or QF30 in a similar vein? If so, what were the popular pass around "titles"? If not, why not?

The piss was taken, and to this day there are a couple of jibes that sometimes come up. Very few events ever get their own title...last time I looked we were talking about the title of a thread. All events are replayed a million times by other pilots, and they'll often come up with different answers. Sometimes better...

This video gives some idea of how little time can be available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrgnnRf7YM

 

[blackcat20]

Apparently the same plane we flew to SIN on two weeks ago...

 

[docjames]

2m57sec video - appeared to be a decent response (happy to be contradicted) by fire crews but the moving around taxiway to get upwind cost them a bit of time.

 

[russ]

Pilots will invariably treat any accident with this outcome in this way.

I'm a pilot, and I wouldn't ever use the term "barbeque" because it's not clear what got barbequed. When I first read the title, I feared that it was people, but then I read that it was just machinery. I have used the term "cook an engine" on occasion, but (a) only to pilots and engineers and (b) hopefully it's clear that the engine got cooked, not anything else.

We want it to be funny when it can be, because we understand, far better than most others, just how quickly, and badly it can go wrong.

I don't follow that logic.

 

[Conrad_S]

Boarding a plane means you place your absolute trust in the leadership and the crew of that aircraft. During a critical event they are charged with making any decisions and carrying out any actions beyond your immediate control. In this case the outcome was good and a bit of amusement around the title doesn't offend me.
Notwithstanding the expertise and knowledge of some of the people here, there is simply not enough information to read much more into it than it seems a conservative approach was taken. I'll look forward to the investigation and hope I'm never in the same situation.

 

[jb747]

2m57sec video - appeared to be a decent response (happy to be contradicted) by fire crews but the moving around taxiway to get upwind cost them a bit of time.

You'd have to expect that the fire crews were already waiting somewhere near the runway. Going off the taxiways might not be much of an option, as I'd expect the ground to be pretty permanently wet and soft. There are also some fairly big drains around the place, though I forget exactly where.

 

[Meggsy]

2m57sec video - appeared to be a decent response (happy to be contradicted) by fire crews but the moving around taxiway to get upwind cost them a bit of time.

Was a text book response by the ARFFS. Vehicles and crew were at standby positions and rolling before the aircraft came to a halt and were in position to apply foam about 1 minute after. Upwind application of foam is much preferred SOP as there is no blowback of foam, crews have increased visibility and are generally not working in smoke.

 

[drron]

The pictures are dramatic ... but listen to the audio. No panic, no calling to get out, no screaming.

I think the most discordant thing I hear is what sounds like an Aussie accent saying something like "This is bloody inconvenient ..."

Though on the video on channel 7 news last night people were shouting-"open the doors".Basically because smoke and fumes starting to come into the cabin according to the journalist.

 

[RooFlyer]

Wow. Compare and contrast. TomVexville, AFF's reporter-on-the-spot has pics of the evacuation of an AA jet at LHR after smoke came from the rear ?cabin exhaust? at the tail area. More on-line.

I guess if that's thick smoky cabin air being exhausted, then deploying the slides would be necessary to prevent choking (the forward slide wasn't deployed and the plane was still hooked up to the air bridge indicating the issue was at the rear of the cabin). Also appears that the evacuation was stopped fairly rapidly. Also wonder if pax initiated this themselves? (I know, just uninformed speculation ... )

 

[jb747]

Wow. Compare and contrast. TomVexville, AFF's reporter-on-the-spot has pics of the evacuation of an AA jet at LHR after smoke came from the rear ?cabin exhaust? at the tail area. More on-line.

APU. It's another jet engine, which can give all of the same issues as the ones under the wings. They have automatic fire extinguishers, as well as manual.

It's important to remember that engine fire extinguishers only work for the area inside of the cowl. They are useless in many situations.

 

[blackcat20]

Wow. Compare and contrast. TomVexville, AFF's reporter-on-the-spot has pics of the evacuation of an AA jet at LHR after smoke came from the rear ?cabin exhaust? at the tail area. More on-line.

I guess if that's thick smoky cabin air being exhausted, then deploying the slides would be necessary to prevent choking (the forward slide wasn't deployed and the plane was still hooked up to the air bridge indicating the issue was at the rear of the cabin). Also appears that the evacuation was stopped fairly rapidly. Also wonder if pax initiated this themselves? (I know, just uninformed speculation ... )

Most pax deplaned via the airbridge. Only 25 or so used the rear slides, the middle one was not used. The first few pax down the slide hit the ground really hard but fortunately recovered to assist the subsequent passengers. It was pretty confronting to watch it unfold right in front of us, but all handled really well. Ground staff ran to the slide as soon as they saw passengers coming down and fire trucks were there within a minute or so. I do have a video but not sure I'm comfortable posting it given you can hear the shock of people watching on.

Also, the airbridge had been removed from the plane prior to departure but was returned to the plane at some point (though Im not sure when).

 

[Melburnian1]

Would it be reasonable to expect an investigation like this to be completed within (say) 18 months and the report then handed to the authorities in Singapore?

Am I correct that the report may never be publicly released, or released after having been censored?