Trent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 206 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 months 18 hours ago) and read 11624 times:
Is this from a real incident?
If so, would the aircraft be able to take off safely if that engine were not operational?
What kind of event would cause such damage? It seems much more serious than bird strike.
If the pic has been altered, what could cause this kind of damage on the ground?
Yep, real. Airtran Flight 4 (A320) on July 13, 2004, shortly after it departed ATL for MCO. Returned to ATL. Uneventful landing.
Quoting Trent1000 (Thread starter): If so, would the aircraft be able to take off safely if that engine were not operational?
The engine was working OK. The cover over a part of it was off, but the engine was still doing its magic. Think of it this way: if you shed your clothes in public, would your body still work? Answer: yes, it would, even if it looks a bit embarrassing to the general public. No different from this particular situation.
Quote: On July 13, 2004, about 1200 eastern daylight time, an Airbus Industrie A320-233, N951LF, operated by Ryan International Airlines, Inc., as AirTran Airways Flight 4, returned for landing after a portion of the left engine cowling separated from the airplane
Same picture is in the above thread but much bigger.
A10WARTHOG From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 305 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (9 months 11 hours ago) and read 11104 times:
Part depart the aircraft all the time. Normally nothing as big as the whole engine cowl, but static wicks always come off and I have seen a number of oil access doors come off in flight.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 835 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 months 11 hours ago) and read 11080 times:
Quoting DingDong (Reply 3): The engine was working OK. The cover over a part of it was off, but the engine was still doing its magic. Think of it this way: if you shed your clothes in public, would your body still work? Answer: yes, it would, even if it looks a bit embarrassing to the general public. No different from this particular situation.
Your body isn't travelling 600mph. Are all the lines and harnesses designed to survive the airstream like that?
DingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 months 11 hours ago) and read 11022 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 7): Your body isn't travelling 600mph. Are all the lines and harnesses designed to survive the airstream like that?
That's a fair point.
But in this specific incident, the engine did continue to work correctly -- whether designed for it or not. Doesn't mean it's a great idea to operate in that manner -- return or divert would be appropriate in such cases, and was indeed done.
It used to be on this site, too.... I'll see if I can dig it up.
I remember when it happened. It was a HUGE deal in the discussion forums.
It was just one negative incident, but it contributed to AirTran's overall hate of the A320 experiment, which purportedly had a terrible dispatch reliability. They ended up ordering 737s rather than 32X family aircraft. AND they canned Ryan Int'l.
For unto us a Child is born- unto us a Son is given!
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 6316 posts, RR: 58 Reply 16, posted (9 months 8 hours ago) and read 10472 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 7): Are all the lines and harnesses designed to survive the airstream like that?
I suspect that's probably a requirement, but all the lines and harnesses are definitely designed to survive the vibration g's due to a lost blade, which is going to be significantly higher than air loads.
Phoenix9 From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 2448 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (9 months 6 hours ago) and read 8937 times:
I can only imagine the look on the face of the poor guy/girl sitting next to window when this happened. I bet they must have wanted some new pants right afterwards.
Life only makes sense when you look at it backwards.
7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 months 6 hours ago) and read 8841 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 13): I remember when it happened. It was a HUGE deal in the discussion forums.
It was just one negative incident, but it contributed to AirTran's overall hate of the A320 experiment, which purportedly had a terrible dispatch reliability. They ended up ordering 737s rather than 32X family aircraft. AND they canned Ryan Int'l.
This is not totally true ...
The use of Ryan International and the Airbus aircraft had nothing to do with the Air Tran ordering 737's. The 737's were already on order when Ryan was contracted. The reliability rate can very well lie with the operator as well as the airframe.
That being said - most operators with V2500 engines require a log book entry prior to dispatch due to the fact that the fan cowls look closed even when not latched. On other aircraft - the is a gap and it is obvious they are open.
Over eight-hundred twenty times a day the people of TWA take to the air with just one mission. Yours.
AirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3173 posts, RR: 16 Reply 20, posted (9 months 5 hours ago) and read 8568 times:
Quoting 7673mech (Reply 19): The use of Ryan International and the Airbus aircraft had nothing to do with the Air Tran ordering 737's. The 737's were already on order when Ryan was contracted. The reliability rate can very well lie with the operator as well as the airframe
The Ryan contract had already started when FL ordered the 737's. It was a few months into it that FL decided between the A319 and the 73G.
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
ABQopsHP From United States of America, joined May 2006, 502 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (9 months 1 hour ago) and read 7043 times:
Gee. I seem to recall this foto being passed around to all of us at HP a few years back. And that it was one of our a/c.....as it was told it happend over Kansas, then diverted to ICT. Cant get factual evidence on this anymore since I no longer work at HP/US, but im not so sure it was an a/c on lease to FL.
Ok everyone start flaming me....
JD CRPXE
7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (9 months ago) and read 6695 times:
Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 20):
The Ryan contract had already started when FL ordered the 737's. It was a few months into it that FL decided between the A319 and the 73G.
They were one month into the contract. Hardly enough time to sway them either way was my point.
Over eight-hundred twenty times a day the people of TWA take to the air with just one mission. Yours.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (9 months ago) and read 6680 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5): They forgot to latch the cowls after maintenance.
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 13): I remember when it happened. It was a HUGE deal in the discussion forums.
It was just one negative incident, but it contributed to AirTran's overall hate of the A320 experiment, which purportedly had a terrible dispatch reliability. They ended up ordering 737s rather than 32X family aircraft.
Yeah, clearly an appropriate response is to fault the aircraft...
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5079 times:
The cause of the incident was the latches on the cowl doors and no "alert" mechanism for when they didn't lock.
The cause of the incident was a maintenance guy who basically just slammed the door shut. This is not an uncommon habit, and usually the latches work just fine and lock, but occasionally they don't. It was never an encouraged practice to do this, and people were supposed to get on their hands and knees to visually confirm the door was locked in place, but people get into bad habits easily, perhaps (and this is just speculation) as it is very rare for the latch to fail so people perhaps assume it always functions.
Anyways, in this particular event, the latch didn't lock into place, and when the aircraft reached a certain speed (cant remember if that was in the air or on the runway), the airflow got sufficient purchase on the doors to rip them open.
The upshot of this is that almost all cowl doors now have a spring system in them to open the door again if the latch is not locked, so even if people slam them shut there isn't a chance of the aircraft departing with cowls unlocked.
Gliding is to power flying as seduction is to rape.
DingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4612 times:
Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 21): Gee. I seem to recall this foto being passed around to all of us at HP a few years back. And that it was one of our a/c.....as it was told it happend over Kansas, then diverted to ICT. Cant get factual evidence on this anymore since I no longer work at HP/US, but im not so sure it was an a/c on lease to FL.
Ok everyone start flaming me....
No flaming, but highly unlikely. Reg was N951LF, and given its history, doesn't look like it ever was in HP's fleet.
Falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3798 posts, RR: 26 Reply 26, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4759 times:
Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 21): I seem to recall this foto being passed around to all of us at HP a few years back
You might be thinking of a HP CRJ. I remember seeing photos of a HP CRJ a few years ago that had a destroyed engine on it. I don't recall where the flight was going to or where it came from.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 27, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4711 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 7): Your body isn't travelling 600mph.
For that matter, neither is the aircraft pictured.
Yes, I know 500-600mph speeds are commonly given to passengers, but that reflects the aircraft's speed relative to passing points that are on the ground, i.e. it's a groundspeed (GS). The speed of the aircraft relative to the air that it's flying in is true airspeed (TAS) and the crew has an airspeed indicator that provides, strangely enough, indicated airspeed (IAS). The TAS and IAS are much lower than the GS, even when factoring in the MPH that crews commonly use in PA announcements for GS and converting that into knots (which the TAS and GS are expressed in) for us aviation types.
So, bottomline WRT to OP's post, it's not like this A320 was not rocketing along at Mach 2-3 and, at the actual speeds involved, wasn't in any real danger of shedding any parts.
Steinberger45 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 5 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4355 times:
This issue has happened more than you think. More back in the 90's when the buses were first being intergraited into the airlines. I remember some body telling me that one of the reasons this happened was because when the airlines got their acft they were not allowed by Airbus to cut and put a door in for IDG service in the fan cowl. Making it necessary to open the cowling everytime the IDG is checked and serviced.. Which is quite frequent. ie sometimes every other night As apposed to like a 737 which has a service door and never requires the opening of the cowl for this. This was a new routine for mechanics and unfortunately cowls were left unlatched. Airlines painted the latches red and installed locking systems that when the cowl was dropped closed kept the cowling open to a degree so it was obvious that the cowl was not closed and latched. Also paperwork was changed so more that one person was involved in the closing of the cowl and verification
AirTran717 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 746 posts, RR: 4 Reply 31, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3773 times:
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 23): Yeah, clearly an appropriate response is to fault the aircraft...
Being that I worked for FL at the time of the incident... Ryan had more mechanical issues in the first week of our contract than our own, whole company did in over 6 months. It was something like 4 or 5 flights were delayed and ultimately cancelled due to mx issues. While it may not be wholly fair to the a/c itself, Ryan's ability to maintain said a/c and it's performance does impact the perception of it's long-term functionality. You may adore the 320. We didn't. Nothing more can be or needs to be derived from that decision.
But it was a Ryan A-320 and their maintenance folks forgot to refasten the cowling. An engine can function at altitude, with the cowling off, at 600 mph... what sense would it make to design an aircraft to function only in ideal situations?
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4318 posts, RR: 54 Reply 32, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3304 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 27): it's a groundspeed (GS). The speed of the aircraft relative to the air that it's flying in is true airspeed (TAS) and the crew has an airspeed indicator that provides, strangely enough, indicated airspeed (IAS). The TAS and IAS are much lower than the GS,
Um, I think you may be under a mistaken impression here, although the point you make is still valid.
TAS is the aircraft's speed relative to the air mass it is flying in. Under nil wind conditions, it will be equal to the ground speed. If the aircraft is flying in a headwind, TAS will be more than GS. If the aircraft is flying in a tailwind, TAS will be less than GS.
IAS is the dynamic pressure being experienced at the pitot tube, expressed as a speed. At standard sea level conditions, IAS will equal TAS. As you increase altitude, and air pressure decreases, IAS will reduce.
[It is even more complex than that if you want to go into more depth. Because of the position of the components of the pitot-static system, the IAS is unlikely to be a 100% accurate indication of the dynamic pressure that would be obtained simply with a pitot-static tube flying freely at the same speed as the aircraft, so an aircraft flight manual will contain a correction to allow Calibrated Air Speed (CAS) to be obtained. Furthermore, at high speed, compressibility effects come into play, and this CAS needs to be corrected again, giving an Equivalent Air Speed (EAS)]
OPNLguy is completely correct though when he says what the structure "feels" isn't the same as the speed you see on the IFE or hear from the crew. In terms of what "wind blast", if you will, that exposed items are feeling, IAS (or actually EAS to be precise) is what really matters.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3202 times:
Quoting Falstaff (Reply 26): You might be thinking of a HP CRJ. I remember seeing photos of a HP CRJ a few years ago that had a destroyed engine on it. I don't recall where the flight was going to or where it came from.
That happened right over my house. Flight was from DEN-PHX, the engine came apart right over Pike's Peak.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 34, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3133 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 32): Um, I think you may be under a mistaken impression here, although the point you make is still valid.
TAS is the aircraft's speed relative to the air mass it is flying in. Under nil wind conditions, it will be equal to the ground speed. If the aircraft is flying in a headwind, TAS will be more than GS. If the aircraft is flying in a tailwind, TAS will be less than GS.
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 27): Yes, I know 500-600mph speeds are commonly given to passengers, but that reflects the aircraft's speed relative to passing points that are on the ground, i.e. it's a groundspeed (GS). The speed of the aircraft relative to the air that it's flying in is true airspeed (TAS)
Perhap quoting me completely would help.. I intentionally left the HW/TW aspect out of the groundspeed issue so as to keep things simple and not overwhelm them with techie stuff.
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 32): IAS is the dynamic pressure being experienced at the pitot tube, expressed as a speed. At standard sea level conditions, IAS will equal TAS. As you increase altitude, and air pressure decreases, IAS will reduce.
[It is even more complex than that if you want to go into more depth. Because of the position of the components of the pitot-static system, the IAS is unlikely to be a 100% accurate indication of the dynamic pressure that would be obtained simply with a pitot-static tube flying freely at the same speed as the aircraft, so an aircraft flight manual will contain a correction to allow Calibrated Air Speed (CAS) to be obtained. Furthermore, at high speed, compressibility effects come into play, and this CAS needs to be corrected again, giving an Equivalent Air Speed (EAS)]
Likewise, way too complicated, thus my more simplistic "the crew has an airspeed indicator that provides, strangely enough, indicated airspeed (IAS)."
CitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 1610 posts, RR: 4 Reply 35, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2779 times:
Quoting A10WARTHOG (Reply 6): Part depart the aircraft all the time.
Agreed. Sometimes the entire engine comes off in flight. The 727 had a few incidences of the forward lavatory leaking and causing blue ice to break loose and knock the engine off the aircraft. Northwest had it happen on January 4, 1990, and AA had it happen on April 16, 1985.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 36, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2619 times:
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 35): Northwest had it happen on January 4, 1990, and AA had it happen on April 16, 1985.
Actually, AA and NW were incidents #2 and #3, respectively--The original National Airlines had the first incident back on April 30, 1974. I wonder if there were any incidents outside the USA?
Remcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 331 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2413 times:
It's a good thing that the cowling was designed properly: it ripped off in flight instead of not ripping off and acting like a giant air-brake on the left side.
If it didn't cleanly come off like that it could have done a lot more damage and/or made the aircraft a lot more difficult to fly.
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4318 posts, RR: 54 Reply 39, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 34): Perhap quoting me completely would help..
Without wanting to labour what is really a minor issue, you said:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 27): The TAS and IAS are much lower than the GS
While that is true for the IAS assuming we are at altitude, it is not true for TAS. I was wanting to clear it up so that there wouldn't be a false impression that TAS was somehow always less than GS. As I said, your point abut the fact the engine isn't exposed to 600mph winds as we would experience them at sea level is completely correct.
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
Sponsor Message: 
From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 206 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Answer: yes, it would, even if it looks a bit embarrassing to the general public. No different from this particular situation.
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 6316 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8399 posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 287 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 129 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4318 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 28091 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
