PIA Airbus with 276 Passengers Escapes Disaster
By Omair Rasheed - Pakistan Times Staff Correspondent
LAHORE: An aircraft of Pakistan International Airlines [PIA] with 276 persons aboard had to make an emergency landing after an engine caught fire, shortly after its' take off.
The Airbus A300 aircraft made the emergency landing at Allama Iqbal International Airport in Lahore late on Monday night, minutes after taking off for Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia.
'Pakistan Times' understands that the pilots reported the engine fire. No-one was injured in the incident.
A spokesman for the airport said that the engine fire was caused by 'a technical fault.' A replacement aircraft took over the flight which was delayed by an hour, sources said.
Flight PK 734 took off from Lahore Airport at 21:20 PST [16:20 GMT] on Monday. Soon afterwards, one of its engines caught fire. This was noticed by people living in localities near the airport. Some of them reported the incident to the control tower and some to newspapers.
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
Litz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2061 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8535 times:
On Columbia, the accident wasn't unforseen in any way - they'd seen similar damage previously, just never to such an extent. And they figured the probabilities of such an event were so remote they didn't need addressing.
Murphy and his law caught up.
On airliners and engine fires : not neccesarily common, but it CAN happen and there are established procedures for such that are practiced often by the crews both in class and in simulators.
And the aircraft themselves are equipped to deal with fires ... you can dump extinguishing agents into the affected engine, cut off the fuel flow (no fuel, no fire), etc etc.
All of the above, if they work correctly, should allow a safe (albeit white knuckled) landing every time.
Very scary, yes. Very dangerous, possibly. A Disaster? not unless a whole host of things that are supposed to happen correctly do not.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8333 times:
Not really, this is entirely different. The AF Concorde's fuel tank was ruptured by foreign debris and the engine exhaust caused that fuel that leaked to ignite, in turn setting fire to both engins and most of the wing on that side of the aircraft.
This was a regular engine fire, which is more common. A similar occurance would be the Kegworth disaster involving a BMI 737-400, although that was less of an engine fire and more of an engine fault (blades snapping). And obviously, shutting down the wrong engine..
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8561 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7103 times:
Oh boy, what's wrong with you people? Kalakaua comparing the Columbia disaster to an engine fire on a commercial transport is silly, you may as well compare an earthquake to what happened on this PIA A300. An engine fire is a type of emergency that has never resulted in a passenger fatality (except, say, in the case of a BOAC 707 where the fuel was left pumping, and a couple of pax didn't get out after landing - I call that pilot error).
BIGBlack You're thinking of the Challenger. Please get your facts straight.
Rj777 Concorde crashed because of tyre failures which flung rubber debris into the fuel tanks. This has nothing to do with an engine malfunction.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
BeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 773 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5109 times:
"An engine fire is a type of emergency that has never resulted in a passenger fatality (except, say, in the case of a BOAC 707 where the fuel was left pumping, and a couple of pax didn't get out after landing - I call that pilot error)."
Not so. British Airtours also had a serious engine fire on takeoff, on a 737-200, due to a catastrophic burner can rupture. The takeoff was aborted but there were many casualties. A similar incident happened to a Pacific Western 737-200 but happily all came out alive, to a Cameroon Air 737-200 (108 dead), to an Air Algérie 737-200 (97 plus 5 crew dead), Indian Airlines 737-200 (in-flight, 50 dead).
In fact if you do a search on airsafe.com you will find numerous engine fires that led to fatal consequences; some exacerbated by bad decisions on the flight deck, but some not.
You'll also find a disproportionate number of 737-200s involved in these accidents.
Any engine fire in flight is an emergency situation with potentially fatal consequences. Yes, pilots are trained to deal with them and yes, the media does exaggerate or use excessively colourful language. But it is definitely a "mayday" situation.
In fact it's a predictable pattern here: overly dramatic media account of an airliner emergency followed by A-netters pooh-poohing it into a minor or "routine" incident when, in fact, it is a serious in-flight emergency.
THY747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4308 times:
What's wrong with everyone. Get a reality check. An engine fire is serious, dangeous and could lead to a chain reaction of events that could bring a plane down. I'd like to see how you all react sitting next to a blazing engine in a plane loaded with fuel. Geez.
Deltabobo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 209 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3998 times:
Did any of you people watch the show "Seconds from Disaster" on the National Geographic Channel? They investigated the crash of Concorde in July 2000. The chunks of rubber from the disintegrated tire DID NOT penetrate the wing fuel tank. The 10 lb. piece of rubber from the tire, at that speed it was traveling at, hit the wing tank, with such pressure that wing tank plug popped out, causing the fuel leak. The fuel was NOT ignited by engine exhaust, but by the landing gear control wire that was severed by another piece of rubber. The repeated attempts by the crew to raise the gear caused a spark, because the circuit was interrupted. The sparks from the wire ignited the fuel, causing the infamous fire that we all know too well today.
Dispatchers...saving pilots from themselves and their egos since 1938!
You're right basically right about the tank though, except it blew out the bottom of the tank not a plug.
To stay on topic: No doubt an engine fire that is extinguished but forces a divert is a serious matter and the airplane needs to be on the ground ASAP. It is not the "omigod we're on FIRE" emergency that the press would like us to believe. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the PIA airplane just had a fault in the fire warning loop.