Singapore Airlines Boeing in flames at Changi after turnback from flight to Milan

[Ryan N]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/singapore-airlines-boeing-in-flames-at-changi-after-turnback-from-milan-flight-20160627-gpsl5n.html

[Kent Broadhead]

Will be interesting to see the extent of the damage. Footage suggests that leaking fuel on the wing may have ignited?

[Greg Hyde]

Lead story tonights news.

Lots of fire & smoke

[Michael Cleary]

From photos and vids that I have seen, it makes you wonder why they didn't evacuate.

[Alex Lui]

Aircraft involved was 9V-SWB.

[MarkR]

From photos and vids that I have seen, it makes you wonder why they didn't evacuate.

Bit hard to second guess the decision when you are not there, no doubt it will be looked at down the track. At least it made things easy for the ground crews attacking the problem in terms of not having to worry about people everywhere in a panicked state.

[Rowan McKeever]

From photos and vids that I have seen, it makes you wonder why they didn't evacuate.

There could be any number of reasons for keeping the pax and crew onboard until the fire was out.

For example, from the videos I've watched, it seems that (a) the crew had not asked for assistance during the approach and the fire has started only after the aircraft is settled on the runway, and (b) the crew is aware the wing is on fire, turned the aircraft 180 degrees to position it so the wind was blowing from port to starboard, i.e. blowing the fire and smoke away from the fuselage. Perhaps, and particularly as the fire was so unexpected, meaning the #1 engine would need to be shut down before an evacuation could commence, it was deemed safer to keep everyone where they were rather than have people wandering around (with or without injuries from the slides) outside while the ARFFS crews were manouevering trucks, spraying foam, etc. Remember OZ214 where a pax was actually crushed by a fire truck having been injured and so covered in foam that, combined with the smoke, the truck's driver literally couldn't see her.

I have every faith that the crew of a SQ flight, and the SIN ARFFS crews and ATC, would have been in constant communication and would, if necessary, have initiated an evacuation.

[Greg Hyde]

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/passengers-tell-of-terror-as-new-photos-show-jet-engine-on-fire/news-story/6a6936a18e7e65fac8ad562f60e3569d

Bottom photo show wing damage.

Fixable ?

[Michael Cleary]

Probably depends on who actually owns it, and if leased, how long the lease has left etc. First flew on 05/11/2006.