Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
PIA Airbus With 276 Passengers Escapes Disaster  
User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8804 times:

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2004/09/08/top6.htm

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.
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8718 times:

Damn! Good show everyone was okay.


Someone special in the air
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8708 times:

Good grief... happy nothing has happened...

User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8499 times:

Oh, for goodness' sake. "Escapes disaster"...?

It was only an engine fire. Professional work by the crew, I'm sure, but nothing that they're not regularly trained to cope with.  Insane


User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8334 times:

Backfire, that was the same attitude that destroyed the Columbia... "Oh, it's only a scratch..." Who knows what could have happened?!


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineJfkaua From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1000 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8293 times:

Although its a scary moment for everyone involved... I do believed the crew are trained in this kind of situation so it should not be a disaster or life-threatening situation.

User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8203 times:

Backfire, that was the same attitude that destroyed the Columbia


With all due respect, that's utter nonsense.

Space launches are not routine - airliner flights are. Columbia was destroyed by an unforeseen event for which NASA and the Shuttle crew was unprepared.

Every airline pilot, in contrast, is regularly trained to deal with engine failure at take-off, engine fires, and a host of other scenarios.

Engine fires and failures are not uncommon. But they are usually non-events which are dealt with accordingly. Like this one.


User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8188 times:

Weather, and the choice to launch in that weather, is what destroyed Columbia


Someone special in the air
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8167 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

- litz


User currently offlineRj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1861 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8059 times:

Sounds similar to the Concorde Crash (only with a happier ending)

User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7965 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..


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8142 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6735 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
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5661 times:

Cedarjet is right on...

Aircraft accidents are generally caused by a combination of things going wrong rather than just one event like this engine fire.

If you have an engine fire AND a failure of the extinguishing system then you have a "escaping disaster" situation.

SATL382G


User currently offlineBeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 726 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4741 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.

Mike


User currently offlineDayflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4690 times:

I could not agree with Backfire more. Great work by a highly trained crew. "Escapes Disaster" is a bit over the top! Glad no one was injured.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineTHY747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3940 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.

User currently offlineDeltabobo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3630 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!
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2795 times:

The repeated attempts by the crew to raise the gear caused a spark, because the circuit was interrupted.

The Concorde in Paris was afire well before the crew tried to raise the gear. So the show is either wrong or you misunderstood.

http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html

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.

SATL382G

SATL382G

[Edited 2004-09-09 20:32:51]

User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2695 times:

I wouldn't be surprised if the PIA airplane just had a fault in the fire warning loop.

Avionics problems are usually not visible from the ground  Big grin

but yes, the whole thing was sensationalized...what's new?



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Eyewitnesses are usually unreliable.. particularly when interviewed by newspaper reporters. I stand by my statement.

SATL382G


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1916 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2317 times:

You people consider yourselves aviation enthusists? This is the most un-informed thread I've ever seen on this website.

Seriously, an engine failure is basically a non-event . Engine fire, maybe a little more excitment, but for the love of all things holy, this is still closer to a non-event than "DISASTER!!!!"

Planes don't fly on fairy dust magic boys and girls. Engines failures happen, are excpected to happen from time to time, and are well trained for.

Hats off to flight crew for a job well done, end of story.

George






They're not handing trophies out today
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 With Test Passengers posted Mon Nov 6 2006 21:54:16 by Door5right
The Possibility of AC Replacing Airbus With Embraer? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 15:10:16 by GoBlue
How To Deal With Overweight Passengers? posted Thu May 18 2006 14:20:17 by B777A340Fan
AI B744 Escapes Disaster posted Sun Apr 2 2006 00:25:46 by Aseem
Airport With Most Passengers posted Mon Jan 3 2005 03:23:04 by Cathay744
Boeing Challenge Airbus With An Advanced Jumbo! posted Tue Jul 27 2004 19:48:54 by VSFullThrottle
Any Airbus With Three-Axle MLG? posted Mon May 31 2004 23:35:37 by Aloges
Airbus With Yoke?!?! posted Tue Jan 13 2004 20:50:53 by LHSebi
Thailand Wants To Pay Airbus With Shrimps... posted Sat Dec 20 2003 16:51:04 by Flyssc
Route With Most Passengers? posted Sat Nov 1 2003 13:13:05 by Thaigold
Airport With Most Passengers posted Mon Jan 3 2005 03:23:04 by Cathay744
Boeing Challenge Airbus With An Advanced Jumbo! posted Tue Jul 27 2004 19:48:54 by VSFullThrottle