Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Skyservice A-320 Loses Engine Cowling On Takeoff  
User currently offlineCopper1 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 439 posts, RR: 1
Posted (13 years 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4292 times:

Just saw on the news a Skyservice A-320 lost most of it's left engine cowling on takeoff from Toronto YYZ just after 5pm local time. Aircraft was past V1 when pilot heard large bang. He looked out window and saw cowling gone. He continued with T/O and made landing back at Toronto. Video from helicopter on local news shows damage to aircraft as it was being towed to Skyservice maintenance. No-one injured during incident.

Whats up with engine cowling separations lately ?

Copper1

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2181 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (13 years 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4171 times:

Any word on what the Reg# is?

User currently offlineCopper1 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4151 times:

Couldn't tell from news footage. The aircraft was one done in the blue scheme.
Perhaps a sharp eyed viewer or someone from YYZ can get the reg#.

Copper1


User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3121 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (13 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4131 times:

This same thing happened to an America West A320 at PHX in June, A A-300-600 Beluga was used to transport a new tail because the engine parts damaged the tail very badly, and the vertical stabelizer too.

-TWA902fly



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (13 years 10 months 2 days ago) and read 4133 times:

Gotta love those Airbuses!!! NOT!!!!!!


"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1689 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 10 months 2 days ago) and read 4135 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hmm, I wonder when Tedski is going to chime in and blame CFM!  

How would he explain it if its a V2500??


Sammy  


User currently offlineMdsmith11 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 194 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 10 months 2 days ago) and read 4120 times:

What is up with the Airbuss's is that the mechanics are not latching the enjine cowlings properly after performing required maintenance on the engines. The enjine latch mechanism for the A-32x and the A-319 are on the bottom center of the enjine. To look at them one just get either on their knees or bend nearly all ythe way over. This is something that most flight crews will not notice on their pre-flight walkarounds. Very unfortunate yes, but luckily no injuries so far, just property damage. Like 'em or not, can't really balme this on Airbus.

In their defense they have started producing a new latch mechanism for all current production A/C and this same kit is available for retrofit on ealrier models.

Mark from UAL @ MSY


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 10 months 2 days ago) and read 4111 times:

The Skyservice incident is the latest of several incidents of cowling detachments on A320s. Other incidents have involved Air Canada, America West and Airtours International. An incident also occured on a Canada 3000 A330. The problem is basically there are no positive indicators, either externally or on the flightdeck that the cowl is not only closed, but also locked and secured.

In the UK the CAA published a detailed report into the Airtours incident, which occured in January.
http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/jul00htm/gvced.htm
-----
Previous cases of cowl detachment;
It appeared that the appreciable number of previous cases should have been sufficient to have prompted the introduction of effective measures to prevent recurrence, prior to G-VCED’s accident and the subsequent A330 accident in Canada. The powerplant manufacturer had developed a number of measures, but those that had been categorised as recommended were considered unlikely to be sufficiently effective. The measure likely to be most effective, the installation of a Hold-Open device (SB 0259), was categorised as a customer option. Some information on the background that could justify incorporating the SB was presented to operators, but only in brief summary form. It would appear that the detailed information on fleet-wide experience available to the aircraft and/or powerplant manufacturer would place them in a considerably better position to judge, in conjunction with the airworthiness authorities, the necessity for a modification relevant to airworthiness and to advise operators accordingly. It is therefore recommended that Airbus Industrie assess the adequacy of their process for determining the possible adverse flight safety implications of reported incidents and accidents to their aircraft and for advising operators of effective measures to prevent recurrence (Recommendation No 2000-31).


Safety Recommendations
Recommendation No 2000-26
It is recommended that the DGAC mandate aircraft modification aimed at appreciably reducing the likelihood of A320 fan cowl doors inadvertently remaining unlatched after maintenance. It is considered that, while measures to exhort maintenance personnel to ensure the doors are latched and to improve the conspicuity of unfastened latches may assist, they are unlikely to be fully effective and modification aimed at providing obvious indication of unlatched doors is required.


Recommendation No 2000-27
It is recommended that, until measures to satisfy the intent of Recommendation No 2000-26 are incorporated, the DGAC and Airbus Industrie recommend A319, A320, A321 and/or A330 aircraft maintenance organisations to record the unlatching and latching of fan cowl doors and to specify a duplicate inspection to confirm latching.


Recommendation No 2000-28
It is recommended that the CAA, FAA and DGAC consider whether similar measures to Recommendations Nos 2000-26 and 2000-27 are necessary for other aircraft types.


Recommendation No 2000-29
It is recommended that the DGAC and Airbus Industrie consider the incorporation of a system to provide flight deck warning of unlatched fan cowl doors on the A319, A320, A321 and A330 aircraft types.


Recommendation No 2000-30
It is recommended that the JAA and the FAA consider a requirement for future aircraft certification for a system to provide flight deck warning of all unlatched access panels or doors that could hazard the aircraft if left unfastened.


Recommendation No 2000-31
It is recommended that Airbus Industrie assess the adequacy of their process for determining the possible adverse flight safety implications of reported incidents and accidents to their aircraft and for advising operators of effective measures to prevent recurrence.

Interesting to note what type of damage has been done by engine cowls being torn off, only takes one incident where the cowl hits the tail/elevators in such a manner as to disable them and we have a probably fatal accident due to uncontrolability. Can't help but draw parallels with the Concorde accident - why was it grounded when A320s are still flying even with several incidents where luck has played a large part in a safe landing. I'm not saying the A320 should be grounded, I don't think Concorde should have been singled out and grounded either, though.

Regards
JET SETTER



User currently offlineRuslan From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 10 months 2 days ago) and read 4099 times:

I'm not sure what's up with the engine part separations these days but a similar thing happened at Piarco International airport Trinidad on Saturday 2, September.
I'm not sure if it involved a cowling or not. This time it was a Boeing 747-100. I'm not sure what airline it was from because there was no livery or titles. (Probably a freighter. US cargo airplanes make lots of fuel stops here.)
Anyway, while on the take-off run, the captain aborted take-off and rolled the 741 to a stop a few thousand feet down the runway. There was a loud bang just before, which was heard all around.
It's a good thing the a/c wasn't past V2 yet.
Runway was closed while the airport duty manager scouted for any debris from a tire blowout.
Following checks by ground crew, pilot informed the Tower that all tires were fine.
A "piece of engine" as it was loosely referred to, was found on the runway a while after. It was after dark so I couldn't see what exactly was found. Anyway, the flight was sucessfully started some hours later.

Sometimes, I think that such occurences as well as air crashes are not natural (I mean supernatural this time, not sabotage), because of the timing associated with them. KLM, this B741F, Skyservice all around the same time is remarkable. But the fact that it didn't happen to the other thousands of a/c out there, might lead one to think about that word that is so convenient for us to use - coincidence.















User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

It is actually a design fault, and AIRBUS has put out a kit to fix the problem, I guess that not everyone has bought it yet.


It's funny how it's and AIRBUS problem but you never really hear about it....I'm sure that if it was a 737NG that had the same design fault we would all be hearing about it in the papers.......that also seems to be a re-occuring theme with AIRBUS




"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineDvmpaunch From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4074 times:

Does anybody know what runway the aircraft was using?, and where did the cowling finally end up? Was the runway shut down for inspections?

Regards Darryl


User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

I think it was 23 because I was at YYZ between 4-7pm at T1 and T2 and did not see any break in activity on 24L nor did I see the 320.


"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineDvmpaunch From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

Makes sense since Skyservice operates out of T3.

User currently offlineGate Keeper From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Runway assignments are predicated on destination not location on the airport. Those south through northbound use the north runway and eastbounds use the south runway.....unless its at night with a full moon and ALL other runways are closed due to construction etc etc etc.......what a model of efficiency YYZ is..NOT.

User currently offlineN312RC From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 2682 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4059 times:

Gotta be those killer GE engines!!!


Fly Delta's Big Jets!
User currently offline220389 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4042 times:

Hey,

I just checked it out. I went to thetrip.com and got the info. I also went to skyservices website. It was an Airbus A320-200 bound for Edmonton Alberta. The flight number is SSV 960. Skyservice chartered a Boeing 757-200 from either Canada 3000 or Royal for the YYZ to YEG route to carry the passengers of flight 960.

Hope this helps


User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4041 times:

It's not a design fault with the aircraft, it's a design that doesn't allow the latch mechanism to be easily checked......it's a simple case of making pilots and ground crew more aware......engineers not closing the door is not an aircraft issue.......it's a training issue

The reason Boeing incidents always end up in the papers is because Boeing have had a series of aircraft problems that have kept journalists watching....same for example as Alaska Air, if they have a five minute delay nowadays it's on the front pages........


User currently offline24291 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

I don't understand how some of you can say it's not a design fault; of course it is!

The old design is such that one can not visually confirm the cowling is secure--it's ambiguous. Human interface issues are very important in aircraft design. That is why manufactures make modifications.

The case is no less serious than a digital dispaly in the cockpit that reads -3 for either a -3° flight bath angle or -3000fpm!


User currently offlineIndianGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4036 times:

People like Slawko just need a topic like this to throw shit at Airbus.

Give it a break man!


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3506 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4008 times:

Indian Guy - what about all the 737 rudder topics? There are lots of people taking advantage of those to throw shit at Boeing. And I have to agree with Slawko. As soon as something goes wrong with the 737, everyone starts talking about the rudder...how many accidents/incidents have there actually been?

Anyway, if you have to complain about pleople throwing shit at Airbus, complain about people throwing shit at Boeing too...

/Danny


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 20, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4003 times:

Little difference: There haven't been ANY serious accidents because of the engine cowling on the A320, but there were at least two accidents with loss of lifes because of rudder problems on the A737.

Regards
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

Right, Gerardo,
There has never been an accident following the loss of a cowling. But there have been several deadly accidents due to the rudder problems of the B737.
Don't point fingers at anybody and forget others' faults...
By the way I think it is a problem of maintenance, not a fault of the aircraft.
And, usually, after one such incident, the manufacturer informs all operators about a problem. But if airlines don't care, it's their problem.

Oh, I don't take Slwako for serious any longer, his permanent loads of shits against AIRBUS (as he writes it) are no surprise any more. It gets boring.
Hey Slawko, I'm sure Air Canada will soon put a second engineer on its AIRBUS flights, right? So that one can jump out and catch the cowling falling...haha.

Regards
Udo


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29782 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4000 times:

Is the latches on a A320 engines just ordinary cam-locks? If so then it really isn't too hard to figure out when they are latched. Haveing delt with them a little bit I can tell you that it is usually pretty easy to tell when they are not in place.

At least the are on the aircraft I deal with.

I dunno but I am getting sick of arrogent pilots blame every single thing that goes wrong on the mechanics.

Could somebody explain to me why an A&P who has to sign a paper making him legally responsible for his/her work on an aircraft makes less then the mechanic at the neighborhood gas station, who isn't resposible for squat.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Everyone must remember the Golden Rule:
1. All Boeing incidents, regardless of aircraft type or flight circumstances, are due to both the 737 rudder and 747 fuel tank. It is a conspiracy at the highest level to put the public on planes that will crash because Boeing actually WANTS its products to crash. It could be a 767 plunged into the sea by a suicidal pilot, but those are the reasons in every case.

2. All Airbus incidents, regardless of aircraft type or flight circumstances, are due to pilot error, or some other sort of ground crew error. Airbus products are flawless, and only human operating screwups can bring them down. And, the 737 rudder and 747 fuel tanks probably have something to do with Airbus incidents as well.

(For those who take themselves a wee bit too seriously, I'll give you the answer to the test: IT'S HUMOR. So, in advance, lighten up and laugh a little.)



Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineSamurai 777 From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 2458 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (13 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3965 times:

The Skyservice A320 landed safely with no injuries at all, and all the passengers were put on a Royal Airlines 757 to Edmonton shortly after the emergency landing.

Air Canada has had a couple of incidents with its A320s in Calgary this summer, one of them forcing an on-the-spot evacuation of all passengers and crews. I think these incidents had something to do with the engines. Sorry, I don't know the details, but I heard that on the radio.

These engine problems are very rare, regardless of whose fault it was and cause. I still wouldn't hesitate to fly on any Airbus plane. They're very nice planes, after all.


25 Widebody : .....any pilot I've talked to blamed the mechanics, and the mechanics blamed the pilots........though in fairness, none blamed the aircraft..........
26 Adria : GET REAL!!!!!
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...
Air Canada Engine Fire On Takeoff... posted Sat Nov 5 2005 03:49:47 by A332
NW DC-10 @ BOS Engine Failure On Takeoff. posted Wed Jun 25 2003 05:17:00 by 767ALLTHEWAY
A340 Loses Two Engines On Takeoff posted Thu Sep 7 2000 00:57:34 by Ben88
2003: United 744 Loses Part Of Engine Cowling? posted Tue May 2 2006 15:39:30 by Tallguy14
Revised Engine Cowling Paint On Emirates? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 03:29:04 by Clickhappy
AC 320 Blows Engine On Take-off In YOW posted Tue Jul 26 2005 18:52:03 by CayMan
Emirates A 330 Engine Cowling Damage. posted Sun Nov 5 2006 15:13:59 by Qslinger
MH 772 Lost Engine Parts At Takeoff @ ARN posted Fri Nov 3 2006 15:02:34 by Bjornstrom
Nouvelair Lost Nose Wheel On Takeoff @ GVA posted Mon Oct 9 2006 15:51:13 by HBJZA
Last Two A/c With Reg N431CA Crashed On Takeoff posted Mon Oct 2 2006 19:40:03 by N701AA
A340 Loses Two Engines On Takeoff posted Thu Sep 7 2000 00:57:34 by Ben88
DCA Closed - DL 757 Engine Catches Fire On Takeoff posted Sun Aug 2 2009 17:11:05 by D L X
Question On Engine Cowling/shell posted Sun Jun 14 2009 20:58:43 by Richiemo
737-200 Loses Engine On Take-off In CPT posted Wed Nov 7 2007 07:29:15 by ArniePie
2003: United 744 Loses Part Of Engine Cowling? posted Tue May 2 2006 15:39:30 by Tallguy14
Revised Engine Cowling Paint On Emirates? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 03:29:04 by Clickhappy