Discussion
pushthebutton said:
The issue could be whose definition of uncontrollable fire you are using? It will mean different things to different people.
It would be my definition of uncontrollable if I was the skipper at the time, with the F/O backing me up in our decision.The only issue with this incident would be the fire service telling us, the crew, the fuel was pooling under the aircraft.
I'm no fireman...
It appears to me that the fire crew controlled the fire on the 777 incident we're discussing; so, in this case, it was controllable by the fire crew. The point I was making is that, in this case, the fire was controllable, so the Captain was by this measure correct. You can't tell just by the pictures and/or videos. The Captain may well have had invaluable input from the fire chief saying that it was under control and not spreading.
Had the fire crew not arrived until later and your sources were cabin crew reports, cockpit warnings and the flight deck window then the answer to the question "is the fire controllable?" obviously changes. The pictures and video we've seen are only one source of information and not enough by themselves, for me, to decide what the correct call was.
With the assumption that the fire crew reported that the fire was under control then the end result is no injuries at all. You could argue that was lucky or you could argue that they may have used all available sources of information to achieve the best possible result. We'll find out in two years
It appears to me that the fire crew controlled the fire on the 777 incident we're discussing; so, in this case, it was controllable by the fire crew. The point I was making is that, in this case, the fire was controllable, so the Captain was by this measure correct. You can't tell just by the pictures and/or videos. The Captain may well have had invaluable input from the fire chief saying that it was under control and not spreading.
Had the fire crew not arrived until later and your sources were cabin crew reports, cockpit warnings and the flight deck window then the answer to the question "is the fire controllable?" obviously changes. The pictures and video we've seen are only one source of information and not enough by themselves, for me, to decide what the correct call was.
With the assumption that the fire crew reported that the fire was under control then the end result is no injuries at all. You could argue that was lucky or you could argue that they may have used all available sources of information to achieve the best possible result. We'll find out in two years
pushthebutton said:
IMO the question you continue to ask yourself is if the aircraft occupants are safer off inside the aircraft or outside of it. You gather information from all of the available sources and then continue to ask whether the occupants are safer inside or outside.
You act on the information you have, but the more information you can gather, the more valid the decision will be. Cabin crew may tell you that the wing is on fire. ATC are further away and may be less useful other than perhaps giving an ETA for the fire crew. Based on the information you have are occupants safer inside or outside?
The fire crew now arrive and confirm that the wing is one fire, but they may also say that they are containing fire and the wind is taking it away from the fuselage. Given the known threats of an evacuation, and the potential for pax to impede the fire fighters during an evacuation; are the occupants safer inside or outside?
The wind direction now changes as it's light and variable: the fire crews continue to tell you that the fire is contained, but the cabin crew call you to say that some light smoke fumes are starting to enter the cabin. Are the occupants safer inside or outside? You're unsure so you speak to the fire chief again.
Almost immediately the cabin crew call you back and say that the fumes have turned to smoke and it's building. Are the occupants safer inside or outside the aircraft? You may decide that they're now safer outside the aircraft as you can't determine at what rate the smoke in the cabin is changing.
So you decide to evacuate. The fire chief needs to know to expect passengers around the aircraft. The cabin crew and passengers need to know including any extra info that'd help. ATC need to know - via a MAYDAY call - to keep other aircraft and vehicles away (I'm sure they'd have done this already, buy you never know).
What you most definitely don't need is some f
king prick (
) deciding they know better and opening the doors in the middle of a situation that's being managed safely and effectively.
I would be that prick. By the time toxic smoke is in the cabin, people are going to die before getting outYou act on the information you have, but the more information you can gather, the more valid the decision will be. Cabin crew may tell you that the wing is on fire. ATC are further away and may be less useful other than perhaps giving an ETA for the fire crew. Based on the information you have are occupants safer inside or outside?
The fire crew now arrive and confirm that the wing is one fire, but they may also say that they are containing fire and the wind is taking it away from the fuselage. Given the known threats of an evacuation, and the potential for pax to impede the fire fighters during an evacuation; are the occupants safer inside or outside?
The wind direction now changes as it's light and variable: the fire crews continue to tell you that the fire is contained, but the cabin crew call you to say that some light smoke fumes are starting to enter the cabin. Are the occupants safer inside or outside? You're unsure so you speak to the fire chief again.
Almost immediately the cabin crew call you back and say that the fumes have turned to smoke and it's building. Are the occupants safer inside or outside the aircraft? You may decide that they're now safer outside the aircraft as you can't determine at what rate the smoke in the cabin is changing.
So you decide to evacuate. The fire chief needs to know to expect passengers around the aircraft. The cabin crew and passengers need to know including any extra info that'd help. ATC need to know - via a MAYDAY call - to keep other aircraft and vehicles away (I'm sure they'd have done this already, buy you never know).
What you most definitely don't need is some f
king prick () deciding they know better and opening the doors in the middle of a situation that's being managed safely and effectively.Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 28th June 18:36
Hugo a Gogo said:
I would be that prick. By the time toxic smoke is in the cabin, people are going to die before getting out
Fairly recently, a UK crew initiated an evacuation for runway de-icing fluid fumes entering the cabin. It was uncommanded, the engines were running because the pilots didn't know. How would you know that the fumes were toxic? I'd hope that my crew would slap you down like the weasel you are 
. I've read that a passenger on the Hudson ditching tried to open one of the rear doors after the ditching; he was launched away from it by one of the more elderly cabin crew at the back.If we are discussing this event then I haven't seen any fumes in the cabin, so your heroics wouldn't have been necessary. If we're discussing another imaginary event where you're controlling all of the variables, you're certain that the fumes are toxic and the crew around your closest door are incapacitated, then I'm sure your heroism would be appreciated by all.
rs4al said:
On the ground, uncontrollable fire, evacuate...simple, not so simple in the air.
Why there was no evacuation is beyond me, I personally don't know how an aircraft wing behaves once on fire, filled with fuel and I don't think many other pilots do either.
The fact that the fire crew extinguished the fire suggests to me that it wasn't uncontrollable in this particular case...Why there was no evacuation is beyond me, I personally don't know how an aircraft wing behaves once on fire, filled with fuel and I don't think many other pilots do either.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Im afraid im with others on this, im not sitting around blindly waiting to die because of a lack of comms between the cabin and the cockpit.
Was there a lack of comms? I haven't seen that bit? SIA aren't like the others IMO 
Looks like I'm the villain on this one
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Placed in that situation I wouldnt be bursting out the door action man style, but if I were sat over the right wing (like the camera lady) I would have been out of my seat sharpish and over to the area of the opposite rear exit in preparation.
Ok, I can't answer the comms part, but I'll give the crew the benefit of the doubt until we hear for sure. So, you'd have rapelled out of the door like action man straight into a running 777 engine. I can hear the battle cries now "COME ON, WHO's WITH ME?" "OH SHIII..."I know you know better!!
Oh and SIA and Cathay are not like the others IMO.
el stovey said:
This is what Boeing say about it in the B777 flight crew training manual.
The last significant 777 fire that I recall was the BA in Las Vegas. From memory they had pooled fuel to contend with, a fire that was more focused on the engine and inboard, and made the decision fairly quickly to get out.From a pilot's eye how does this scenario differ?
surveyor said:
The last significant 777 fire that I recall was the BA in Las Vegas. From memory they had pooled fuel to contend with, a fire that was more focused on the engine and inboard, and made the decision fairly quickly to get out.
From a pilot's eye how does this scenario differ?
The Qantas A380 incident had many examples of how to manage a non-normal situation, but the one that several airline training departments have picked up on is the question that the skipper asked himself and the crew: "are the passengers safer on board or outside this aircraft?"From a pilot's eye how does this scenario differ?
This is one significant difference for me:
pushthebutton said:
I've read that a passenger on the Hudson ditching tried to open one of the rear doors after the ditching; he was launched away from it by one of the more elderly cabin crew at the back.
Given that the overwing exits need to be opened by the passengers sitting in the emergency exit rows on most aircraft, presumably there's some sort of interlock preventing them from opening it without it being okayed by the crew?Nope.
I've never flown an Airbus, but as far as I know they are left armed and can be opened of above the water line - this would be the crew check. Aircraft are designed to sit nose high after a ditching and, by opening a door in the normal way, the slide would deploy automatically.
After the Hudson ditching, the rear doors were below the water line afaik, so our 'hero' would've sank the aircraft a lot quicker by opening that door. That opens the possibility of the scenario changing pretty quickly from a no loss of life one.
I've never flown an Airbus, but as far as I know they are left armed and can be opened of above the water line - this would be the crew check. Aircraft are designed to sit nose high after a ditching and, by opening a door in the normal way, the slide would deploy automatically.
After the Hudson ditching, the rear doors were below the water line afaik, so our 'hero' would've sank the aircraft a lot quicker by opening that door. That opens the possibility of the scenario changing pretty quickly from a no loss of life one.
Pushthebutton are you in the lh seat or rh seat ?
I have never in 18 years training had a fire scenario in the sim, where we have not evacuated on the ground if the fire does not go out and have never been criticised for it by the trainers either, maybe SIA has a different training philosophy.
Most scenarios run like this, land and a fire bell goes off, usually apu or cargo smoke, whilst F/O completing relevant checklist, get comms with tower and then fire service, if the fire service says they can see flames etc, I have always asked for the on ground emergency evacuation checklist.
In a British airline, you would in The SIA incidents case, have the cabin crew screaming at you over the inter phone and more than likely if they have not heard from the flight deck within a short period of time, they would be blowing the slides on the safe side of the aircraft.
I have never in 18 years training had a fire scenario in the sim, where we have not evacuated on the ground if the fire does not go out and have never been criticised for it by the trainers either, maybe SIA has a different training philosophy.
Most scenarios run like this, land and a fire bell goes off, usually apu or cargo smoke, whilst F/O completing relevant checklist, get comms with tower and then fire service, if the fire service says they can see flames etc, I have always asked for the on ground emergency evacuation checklist.
In a British airline, you would in The SIA incidents case, have the cabin crew screaming at you over the inter phone and more than likely if they have not heard from the flight deck within a short period of time, they would be blowing the slides on the safe side of the aircraft.
The woman who published the video from inside the aircraft has posted an update an Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/premiummall.sg/videos/103...
She was more worried that she'd have to leave her carry on luggage on board if evacuated and her husband just wanted to video and photo the fire!
She was more worried that she'd have to leave her carry on luggage on board if evacuated and her husband just wanted to video and photo the fire!
rs4al said:
Pushthebutton are you in the lh seat or rh seat ?
I have never in 18 years training had a fire scenario in the sim, where we have not evacuated on the ground if the fire does not go out and have never been criticised for it by the trainers either, maybe SIA has a different training philosophy.
Most scenarios run like this, land and a fire bell goes off, usually apu or cargo smoke, whilst F/O completing relevant checklist, get comms with tower and then fire service, if the fire service says they can see flames etc, I have always asked for the on ground emergency evacuation checklist.
In a British airline, you would in The SIA incidents case, have the cabin crew screaming at you over the inter phone and more than likely if they have not heard from the flight deck within a short period of time, they would be blowing the slides on the safe side of the aircraft.
Both, but I'm currently occupying a seat that enables me to see the World commensurate with my age. If I wanted to see a lot less of the World a lot more often I could swap back, but that won't be happening any time soon.I have never in 18 years training had a fire scenario in the sim, where we have not evacuated on the ground if the fire does not go out and have never been criticised for it by the trainers either, maybe SIA has a different training philosophy.
Most scenarios run like this, land and a fire bell goes off, usually apu or cargo smoke, whilst F/O completing relevant checklist, get comms with tower and then fire service, if the fire service says they can see flames etc, I have always asked for the on ground emergency evacuation checklist.
In a British airline, you would in The SIA incidents case, have the cabin crew screaming at you over the inter phone and more than likely if they have not heard from the flight deck within a short period of time, they would be blowing the slides on the safe side of the aircraft.
I don't have anything to add on sim scenarios as you're managing events as they occur in the sim. My only question is have the fire crews ever managed to put the fire out in your sims? The sim also can't model what happens during and after an evacuation which are very real threats that need to be considered and managed. We are taught various coping strategies for when real-life events do not unfold as we'd expect and, after most emergencies, it's often said that "it didn't happen like it does in the sim."
Does your airline have the equivalent of a stand down call which lets the crew and passengers know that you are dealing with the incident and will contact them again when appropriate? I think that takes care of the cabin crew on the interphone for me? A cabin crew initiated evacuation is defined in my company as when the situation is clearly catastrophic. Was this incident clearly catastrophic when compared, for example, to the Asiana 777 in San Fransisco?
I'm going to repeat this because I think the question asked by the Qantas A380 Captain is brilliant. With hindsight, which is where most SOPs are written from, were the passengers on this SIA flight safer on board or off of the aircraft? Which scenario would have resulted in the fewest injuries?
I'm not looking for an argument and I don't want to disagree as we are all striving to achieve the same outcome. My only observation is whether flames equal evacuation in all scenarios?
Edited by pushthebutton on Wednesday 29th June 12:34
pushthebutton said:
rs4al said:
Pushthebutton are you in the lh seat or rh seat ?
I have never in 18 years training had a fire scenario in the sim, where we have not evacuated on the ground if the fire does not go out and have never been criticised for it by the trainers either, maybe SIA has a different training philosophy.
Most scenarios run like this, land and a fire bell goes off, usually apu or cargo smoke, whilst F/O completing relevant checklist, get comms with tower and then fire service, if the fire service says they can see flames etc, I have always asked for the on ground emergency evacuation checklist.
In a British airline, you would in The SIA incidents case, have the cabin crew screaming at you over the inter phone and more than likely if they have not heard from the flight deck within a short period of time, they would be blowing the slides on the safe side of the aircraft.
Both, but I'm currently occupying a seat that enables me to see the World commensurate with my age. If I wanted to see a lot less of the World a lot more often I could swap back, but that won't be happening any time soon.I have never in 18 years training had a fire scenario in the sim, where we have not evacuated on the ground if the fire does not go out and have never been criticised for it by the trainers either, maybe SIA has a different training philosophy.
Most scenarios run like this, land and a fire bell goes off, usually apu or cargo smoke, whilst F/O completing relevant checklist, get comms with tower and then fire service, if the fire service says they can see flames etc, I have always asked for the on ground emergency evacuation checklist.
In a British airline, you would in The SIA incidents case, have the cabin crew screaming at you over the inter phone and more than likely if they have not heard from the flight deck within a short period of time, they would be blowing the slides on the safe side of the aircraft.
I don't have anything to add on sim scenarios as you're managing events as they occur in the sim. We are taught various coping strategies for when real-life events do not unfold as we'd expect and, after most emergencies, it's often said that "it didn't happen like it did in the sim."
Does your airline have the equivalent of a stand down call which lets the crew and passengers know that you are dealing with the incident and will contact them again when appropriate? I think that takes care of the cabin crew on the interphone for me? A cabin crew initiated evacuation is defined in my company as when the situation is clearly catastrophic. Was this incident clearly catastrophic when compared, for example, to the Asiana 777 in San Fransisco?
I'm going to repeat this because I think the question asked by the Qantas A380 Captain is brilliant. With hindsight, which is where most SOPs are written from, were the passengers on this SIA flight safer on board or off of the aircraft? Which scenario would have resulted in the fewest injuries?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff