Back to Squawk list
  • 66

Singapore 777-300ER catches fire after emergency landing due to fuel leak

A Singapore Airlines plane has caught fire while making an emergency landing at Changi Airport. Flight SQ368 from Changi to Milan was two hours into its journey when the pilot reported engine problems and turned back towards Singapore. In a statement, Singapore Airlines said the plane’s right engine caught fire after it touched down at Changi Airport at around 6.50am. The blaze was put out by airport emergency services and there were no injuries to the 222 passengers and 19 crew on board.… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

mike SUT 19
That would have been a passenger evacuation on the left side if I had been Captain on that aircraft. With that much fire, my first thoughts would have been structural failure of the right wing, (maybe small fuel explosion in tank,) which would have collapsed the aircraft to the right and rendered the left side slides unusable due to the angle they would have been at. The failure to evacuate is below average head work and I'm talking from 39 years of military and airline flying experience.
Brian Moffett 7
I have to believe that communication was either not present or incomplete on the gravity of the situation and the pilots were not aware of the gravity. Toxic gases kill far more than fire. They were lucky...very lucky and glad no loss of life. I hope this is investigated and becomes a case study for the future. Easy to arm chair quarterback but this was obvious.
Victor Engel 1
Was there any fire at all on the port side? In one video it appears as if there were, but that may have just been glare from the lights.
Highflyer1950 1
But today, you are an armchair quarterback, not the captain and the only thing that counts here, is the outcome. Ten or twelve dozen idiot passengers scrambling all over the taxiway, just makes getting the fire fighting equipment to the fire that much harder, takes more time and is infintinely more dangerous. Although, I Would agree that to just sit there and wait for crew instructions would take tremendous patience........which most people do not possess these days.
mike SUT 6
You're right...I am quarterbacking....but I can't help but be reminded of the poor people in the World Trade Towers who were told to stay put, it's okay. Communications OBVIOUSLY wasn't present or incomplete, you're right Brian...Flight Attendants telling the cockpit the WING is on fire, other aircraft on the radio when it's obvious it's a bad fire and no one is leaving the aircraft, Fire trucks already on scene suggesting they evactuate the non burning side after all they are on the side that is burning. Lastly, the cockpit crew should be asking the ARTCC coordinator and/or tower just how bad it is. At the very least on a flight that was supposed to be that long, there had to be a 3rd relief crew mwmber on board. He could have been sent back to get a visual on how bad it was.
Highflyer1950 1
Good points, however since the aircraft was returning and fire/rescue was standing could assume the fire chief was controlling the area around the aircraft and ATC was in contact with the aircraft. Everyone doing their job, meant the fire was extinguished in under 5 min. Protocol wins. You are right about the lack of communication from the flight deck to the back end, but I can't help wondering if the crew shut everything down immediately, leaving only the emergency lighting functioning and the emergency battery bus. I guess we can all read the safety report when it comes out
mike SUT 1
Even on the Hot Battery Bus you have VHF1 and the intercom system works....then there's always the "open the cockpit door" feature and get someone up there.
Highflyer1950 1
Absolutely correct, but that may have the radio in use by the flight crew to ATC. I'm not aware that cockpit door was not open allowing verbal comm with the in-charge. Makes for good discussion however.
Chris B 1
Be interesting to compare this event and the crew decisions and the British Airways 777 plus GE90 fire at Las Vegas a few months ago.
Highflyer1950 1
You may have a point. The only difference I see here is that fire/rescue already had a heads up and were right there on top of it. The BA flight would have had to wait at least 5 min for the trucks to respond, set up and extinguish!
David Loh 4
Why no emergency evacuation via slides with wing on fire? Is pilot aware wing was on fire?
Jeff Lawson 1
Indeed, it's interesting that they waited until the fire was extinguished before evacuating the passengers.
Shenghao Han 5
Evacuation is only recommended if cabin have smoke pouring in. I think it is safer to have the passenger on board while let the firefighter deal with the than have passengers scatter on runway. In fact plane maker have to proof engine fire won't spread to cabin during certification and at the time of fire, the passenger probably was not briefed for evacuation, so many of them may still have their high heels/glasses/watches on which may complicate the situation.
30west 3
S.H., I'm sorry to say but you are absolutely wrong about waiting to evacuate the jet until smoke is pouring into the cabin. I am curious to know where you learned it.

Waiting until that happens will cause the loss of life for many people from not only burns, but smoke inhalation as well. The procedure is to get the folks off the jet before a fire engulfs it. The procedure is practiced year after year in all recurrent training for both pilots and flight attendants.
David Loh 1
You think? Or you know?
ride click 1
I'm surprised that passengers didn't open the over wing exits on the left side of the plane.
Brian Moffett 6
If I had been on that plane with my family I would have opened the slide and evacuated. I'm a fire fighter and from the video the fire was not contained and was out of control. While this ended with no issue they were lucky....I've seen far smaller issues turn into fatalities.
Highflyer1950 -1
You may be a firefighter but you have zero knowledge of what waits for you outside that exit and your self appointed superior attitude is exactly what kills people. You could have opened a slide right into a puddle of jet fuel and incinerated twenty passengers including yourself! Sometimes you have to let the professionals do their job and trust them. I woild also guess that you would be familiar with gaseous explosions. as opposed to burning fuel.......which the airport fire fighters deal with every month in training when they set a prop aircraft full off jet-A on fire!
Jeff Lawson 3
Flight track log --
Jeff Lawson 0
Incident summary --
Robert Mark 3
Did you see the size of that fire in the video? OK, maybe the fire crews told the pilots not to worry, but what the sam hill were the cabin attendants doing?

We're talking about this calmly now because everyone got out OK. But if one of those fuel tanks on the right side had exploded and the crews had ordered everyone to sit still, this would have been a disaster for the history books ... made worse by the lunacy of convincing people to simply sit tight and not worry.

I'm with Mike SUT ... I'd have ordered an evac on the port side.
Ricky Scott 2
WTH, engine Oil Indication and you leave it turning and burning. You Shut them down, and get back. What if this had happened 10-20 miles out rather than touchdown. Sheesh people.
MH370 2
More pictures:
Lars Hagen 2
Evacuate, Evacuate, Evacuate...bipbipbipbipbipbipbipbip....jump and slide...that's all!
Some "home videos" are located here:
GottaFly2 1
I'm with you Mike SUT. WOW I was amazed watching this that it was made by a pax inside the aircraft. i haven't seen any SOPs that don't call for immediate pax evac for fire while on the ground. i would have to assume there were ample indicators of fire on the flight deck, if not solely the flight attendant yells. those are usually pretty hard to miss.
Hard to understand why the passengers were not evacuated.
Years ago I witnessed a similar engine fire in Frankfurt as I was waiting behind a Lufthansa preparing to roll.
The right engine literally exploded before my eyes and the ensuing fire engulfed the entire wing and right side of the fuselage.
All th passengers were immediately evacuated safely within minutes.
Rene Kunz 1
Was it ultimately an "uncontained" engine failure ensuing and resulting from the oil pressure problem, the turbine bearings'screaming'for lubrication otherwise we seize? What else could cause such fire along the trailing edge of the wing as shown in the video, other than wing fuel tank penetration by 'foreign object debris' Remember the devastating Concord crash?
Why did the crew not initiate a rapid decent and fuel dump (they had to ultimately anyhow) and land at the closest airports (Penang WMKP or Kuala Lumpur WMKK on their route.
David Loh 1
Read first typical scenario. Right wing was on fire due to engine fire. Almost identical to this case. This scenario says Aircraft is to be evacuated
Rob Palmer 1
Yes, and if any smoke or the smell of burning, land FAST anyplace, considering Swissair at Halifax a few years ago.
It will be interesting to read the rationale immediate evacuation did not happen with fire and smoke so evident.
djames225 1
I knew I had seen about this previous, but wondering why the Guardian never mentioned the fuel smell passengers encountered a few hrs into the flight?..Im also left to wonder why no evacuation order was made to left side of craft BUT if the captain had thot fuel leak BEFORE aircraft touchdown, he may have considered that opening the doors in the craft could have caused a fuel vapour flashover and engulfed the craft..and an oil leak shouldnt have created a flash fire upon touchdown but a fuel leak could..just a few of my cents thrown into the mix...
oceanvoice8 1
i don't understand why the captain wait for evacuation . the right wing is on fire the evacuation must be on the left side .but maitain 241 persons crew included on bord is very dangerous.
It seems that the engine was still runnung after encountering serious problems. Why hasn't it been turned off?
Nico Arreman 1
That is exactly the problem, the pilots think it's an engine fire and from the cockpit you can not see how big a fire is, so they think the firewire will extinguish it. Only the tower go to alert pilots, as son as possible, to leave the plane on the other side.
apmac77 - better video of fire
citationdude -1
OMG no evacuation very lame crew
william baker -2
THIS WAS AN OIL PRESSURE ISSUE NOT FUEL LEAK. There was NO LEAK. What I don't understand thou why fly two hours if your making an emergency landing.
djames225 1
And you know this was an oil pressure problem and not a fuel leak how?
flypilot12 1
Because it said so in the article.
djames225 1
Singapore Airlines said the engine caught fire following an oil warning message...and I was asking how he knew there wasnt a fuel leak, when passengers in this article from Asia said they thot they smelled fuel during the flight...if that engine was ingesting fuel vapour, yea there would be an oil warning message followed later by a nice fire...but like Mike and HighFive said, we shouldnt quarterback what cause was or why things happened the way they did till after full investigation.
Highflyer1950 1
Trouble with passengers is that they typically can't distinguish an oil smell from a fuel smell! If there was a loss of oil/pressure, as indicated by the crew and subsequently ignited on the engine then there is the possibility it burned through a fuel supply line as well. Interesting to note that the fire started when there was no longer any airflow over the engine. Again, just talking points until the NTSB releases their report.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Roy Hunte 4
Engines can run into trouble at any time. It isn't really fair to blame maintenance without proof. It could be fatigue that wasn't visible on the last inspection, or a faulty bearing or seal that didn't show failure potential on that last inspection.
cscs3 1
Is too early to say. But not sure if final report will be released.
David Loh 2
You sure it was maintenance fault? Maybe they should appoint you to the investigation board since you can come to a conclusion so quickly. Can save tons of money!
It was the gate agent's fault, not mx.
Roy Hunte 1
Hello, how can a gate agent affect engine performance?
BaronG58 5
Think Thrustt was joking. Making reference to in this day and age when something goes wrong, fingers start pointing.
joel wiley 6
Another sarcasm font failure.
Just being sarcastic, since the guy above was quick to blame mx.
Don't know why you got down-voted, bumped you up one...
ToddBaldwin3 0
Are you sure it wasn't the asphalt?
Roy Hunte 1
It reminds me of the BA 747 at TBPB many years ago that caught fire at the stand. Boeing sent engineers and they repaired it right there, test flew it. And ferried it back to the UK.
Not sure if they would do that these days though.
It may not be a hull loss.
Roy Hunte 1
They had to repair the starboard wing.
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Singapore 777 Catches Fire after Emergency Landing

The 777 returned to Singapore about 2 hours after departure for Milan due to an oil temperature warning. It's curious that they didn't evacuate the passengers until after the fire was put out. I know that evacuations can themselves cause injuries so should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances, but with that much flame and the tanks mostly still full, this seems like a bad call.
Rob Palmer 2
Yes, and, considering Swissair at Halifax a few years ago, if any smoke or burning smell; land FAST anyplace.
Rene Kunz 1
Rob Palmer, You got the point! Land the aircraft at at the quickest and most expedient way as I've stated in my previous comment: "Was it ultimately an "uncontained" engine failure ensuing and resulting from the oil pressure problem, the turbine bearings'screaming'for lubrication otherwise we seize up? What else could cause such fire along the trailing edge of the wing as shown in the video, other than wing fuel tank penetration by 'foreign object debris' Remember the devastating Concord crash?
Why did the crew not initiate a rapid decent and fuel dump (they had to ultimately anyhow) and land at the closest airports (Penang WMKP or Kuala Lumpur WMKK on their route.
I did not want to make any reference to the tragic SR111 Halifax crash since that crash was caused by arcing in some extremely poor entertainment system power wiring (installed by some questionable outfit in Phoenix, AZ i might add, one that closed shop shortly thereafter) and ensuing fire above and behind the cockpit with debilitating smoke and total electrical failure of the cockpit displays.
I too am concern of not evacuating the passengers! Probably, considering the accident in SFO a few years ago which I believe, was Asiana?


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.