SQ bird on fire at Changi

[flyguy]

the BA engine fire was was when it was about to take-off, but this SIA was during flight and its just terrifying to see the video

[Metropolitan Airlines]

The slide is very steep and if slides are deployed there might be injuries as people are sliding down.

I think the pilots and SIA handled the situation very well except I wonder if the fuel leak can potentially cause fire why they decide to turn back to SIN rather than land at an immediate airport. It could have been much worse if the plane caught fire mid-air!

Finally, I think SQ should immediately repair the plane by replacing the wing, the engine, and fit premium economy on the cabin.

[kapitan]

Picture of the fire from onboard:



Video of the fire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA9KFUVUmmw

wow.... the video was shot within the plane and it would appear that the paxs were calm,.... there was no screaming or crying,.... great work by the crew onboard.... also if you seen other videos, the fire engine arrives and within seconds foam were already shooting out from their hydrants.... quick job....

another thing that can be analysed from this is that fuel burning does not mean a huge explosion engulfing the whole plane, as what Hollywood movies will portray....

Just me and my thoughts.

[orionmiz]

the BA engine fire was was when it was about to take-off, but this SIA was during flight and its just terrifying to see the video

Actually, the engine only caught fire right after it landed. On air, it was leaking oil.

[flyguy]

Looks like we need to wait for the initial report or SIA reply to as why the plane did not land at the nearest available airport. As reported the aircraft took off at about 2am but only landed at Changi at 7am local time with its wing on fire. The pilot reported engine problem some 2.5 hours into the flight and decided to turn back. Questions remained like was the No. 2 engine shut down after the discovery of the problem and flew back on one engine? and why did it not make a emergency landing - as Penang and or KUL airport would be closer and saved an hour or more. And when the fire on the wing started - on descent?

[alian]

Looks like we need to wait for the initial report or SIA reply to as why the plane did not land at the nearest available airport. As reported the aircraft took off at about 2am but only landed at Changi at 7am local time with its wing on fire. The pilot reported engine problem some 2.5 hours into the flight and decided to turn back. Questions remained like was the No. 2 engine shut down after the discovery of the problem and flew back on one engine? and why did it not make a emergency landing - as Penang and or KUL airport would be closer and saved an hour or more. And when the fire on the wing started - on descent?

Well I think they need to dump fuel first since it's the start of a long flight so needed time to dump fuel and Changi would be just right.

The plane was SWB I think none of the first few 777W

[iancasillas]

They probably wanted to minimize the injuries (and panic) associated with evacuating via the slides.

I think could be due to the pressurization of cabin. I believe the Captain do not want to risk any possibility of explosion by depressurizing the cabin in order to open the doors when there is fire raging.

[banx007]

First of all, it was not leaking fuel, it was leaking engine oil, two very different liquids. And the fire happen after landing, not during the flight. As what actually happen, i do not know but will try to find out what actually happen.

[crazycrab955]

I think could be due to the pressurization of cabin. I believe the Captain do not want to risk any possibility of explosion by depressurizing the cabin in order to open the doors when there is fire raging.

Cabin is normalised to field altitude pressure on descent. So opening the doors would not be an issue.

More likely considered not safe to deplane folks while there are visible flames outside. Just a guess.

[shikhargpt]

External GIFs of the fire (shot from airside):

GIF 1

GIF 2

[SQavgeek]

Oh no, that looks bad. Luckily no one got injured. Is this one of the older 777-300ERs?

[shikhargpt]

Oh no, that looks bad. Luckily no one got injured. Is this one of the older 777-300ERs?

Yup, SWB was SQ's second 77W, delivered on 29 Nov 2006

[flyguy]

yes its SWB and one of the first few 773ERs and was delivered in Nov 2006 - which puts it at 9 years plus

[webbyboy]

First of all, it was not leaking fuel, it was leaking engine oil, two very different liquids. And the fire happen after landing, not during the flight. As what actually happen, i do not know but will try to find out what actually happen.

So reports by news website such as CNA is wrong?

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...e/2907544.html

[mr_botak]

Lots for the report to cover - was it appropriate to

a) overly so many alternate divert fields
b) hold the passengers onboard (amazed the PAX stayed put personally)

BTW looks like the fire service got there amazingly fast.