Ryaneverest From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
Yesterday a TAP A320 took off from Funchal, but suffered a bird strike when it started climbing. It set engine #2 on fire, and as a precaution it was shut down. The A320 headed for Porto Santo nearby, and landed there with a single engine. The time was 2100Z.
An hour later, a TAP A319 flown from Lisbon to Funchal made a stop at Porto Santo to fetch the passengers on the previous flight. Everything worked fine until the A319 started rolling down the runway, one of its tyres suddenly burst. Fortunately the takeoff could be aborted before the A319 zooms out the far end of the runway. No injuries in both incidents.
Anyhow, don't you think that these two incidents closely resemble the Concorde accident some days ago?
Agrodemm From Greece, joined Apr 2000, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
I guess the A320/319 is more handy and easier to control than the Concorde.
By the way ... how did the passengers felt about those two incedents? I mean 2 incedents in the same day... that's scary...
XXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1688 times:
I think the main difference is the fact that the tyre/engine failure was not contained and looks like it ruptured a fuel tank. If that happens I don't think there is anything you can do no matter what aircraft your in.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1666 times:
I saw it on the TV news here but I understood this was with 2 different A319's. One suffered a bird strike on take off, the pilot had to land the plane in the closest airport wich is in Porto Santo, a small island just a few kilometers from Funchal.
The other incident was the tyre blow during the take off roll wich led to an aborted take off.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1662 times:
I think people forget that FAA and JAA requirements for twin-engine jetliners is that they must be able to takeoff and be controllable fully-loaded on one engine. That's why when the TAP airplane had that birdstrike on the engine they were able to quickly control the plane for a non-eventful touchdown.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7032 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1630 times:
Those two incidents are unfortunately quite common, but all airliners are made to cope with these incidents.
The Concorde suffered:
1. engine #2 out
2. angine #1 out
3. a massive fuel leak on port wing
4. a yet not well communicated landing gear problem.
What doomed the Concorde was most likely the combination of TWO engines out and a terrible imballance due to the port wing fuel leak, making the plane uncontrolable at low speed. The fact that the landing gear could not be retracted added to the insufficient power problem, but was hardly a deciding factor.
What scares me somewhat about the Concorde accident is that it may have started as just one fault. Debris from the landing gear may have been swollowed by #2 engine and caused an uncontained engine failure, which put out #1 engine and ruptured the port wing fuel tank.
Due to the different overall configuration such a sequence is hardly thinkable on any Airbus or Boeing plane.
If only the Concorde had kept #1 engine running, then it would most likely have gained speed and altitude, have dumped fuel from starboard wing and landed safely on its cripled landing gear with a line of fire trucks on its tail. Not a comfortable situation, but something which it was designed to cope with, and which its crew was trained to handle.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs