Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA A319 Incident at LHR, All Runways Closed  
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26502 posts, RR: 58
Posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 61156 times:

Sky News reports LHR closed due to BA aircraft indicent on landing . Smoke reported.

News.sky.com


AEGEAN-OLYMPIC AIR - ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΗ " μέλος στη Star Alliance
257 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3410 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 61279 times:

You can see all the holdings in progress on http://www.flightradar24.com/ but how all runways closed ?

User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26502 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 61270 times:

Seems it took off and smoke poured from rear of aircraft.

Pic here :




AEGEAN-OLYMPIC AIR - ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΗ " μέλος στη Star Alliance
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 61097 times:

Accrding to http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-0...ys-shut-after-plane-loses-engine/, it says an aircraft lost an engine on takeoff, and landed with the second engine on fire! Pax evacuated on the runway.

[Edited 2013-05-24 01:18:48]

User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26502 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60946 times:

BA A319 G-EUOE is the aircraft involved.

Corrected Reg typo

[Edited 2013-05-24 01:20:13]


AEGEAN-OLYMPIC AIR - ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΗ " μέλος στη Star Alliance
User currently offlineandrej From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60934 times:

Apparently BA plan made an emergency landing, landed on 'northern runway'...all passengers safely evacuated.

User currently offlinebaw787 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You can watch the holding aircraft on
http://www.rb24.com

Hope everyone is safe.


User currently offlineaudidudi From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60844 times:

I am directly under the 27R flightpath and saw the aircraft going overhead Parsons Green, London, with the right engine on fire! This was at 08.40 and the reg. is G-EUOE, not as reported above, which I think was just a typo!

[Edited 2013-05-24 01:18:48]

User currently offlineedina From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60847 times:

It's the BA762 OSL.....am hearing it was a major bird strike....in the BA Crew Report area currently...will report further if I get any info.


Worked on - Caravelle Mercure A300 A320 F27 SD3-60 BAe146 747-100/200/400 DC10-30 767 777 737-400 757 A319 A321
User currently offlineba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8430 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good news by the looks of it, plane down safe in one piece and all pax and crew safe.

Well done to the crew and ATC for getting her down so quickly.



111,732,3,4,5,7,8,BBJ,741,742,743,744,752,762,763,764,772,773,77W,L15,D10,30,40,AB3,AB6,A312.313,319,320,321,332,333,342
User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3410 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60641 times:

Diverting to STN, LTN, LGW, BRS, and BHX in progress   and Shannon Control is advising all the inbounds from NAT about the airport closure and coordinating diversions  Wink

[Edited 2013-05-24 01:25:06]

User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3364 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60279 times:

Another picture of the plane trailing smoke on the sky new website

http://news.sky.com/story/1095039/heathrow-closed-smoke-seen-on-plane


User currently offlineGlobetraveller From Germany, joined Apr 2008, 379 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60205 times:

You can see the plane's short flight path on FlightAware: http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW762

User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3410 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60045 times:

It seems like it's open again. Three flights just departed...

User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 59915 times:

It's funny the way sometimes they report, Plane of fire ?? comeon.

User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 59796 times:

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 14):
It seems like it's open again. Three flights just departed...

South Runway at least. Makes sense.


User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 59800 times:

BA264 BA188 landing now..followed by AA 104

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8768 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 59504 times:

Picture of the evacuation:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLA9u9dCIAAF8_Q.jpg:large

Full credit: http://twitter.com/TBoneGallagher/status/337837849028206593/photo/1

[Edited 2013-05-24 01:40:43]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4685 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 58711 times:

Great to see all on board evacuated safely. Was this a ex-BMI aircraft as I'm not educated on the BA/BMI A319 fleet registrations.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2927 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 58543 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 19):
Was this a ex-BMI aircraft as I'm not educated on the BA/BMI A319 fleet registrations.

No.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlinevikinga346 From Sweden, joined Oct 2006, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 58538 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 19):
Great to see all on board evacuated safely. Was this a ex-BMI aircraft as I'm not educated on the BA/BMI A319 fleet registrations.

No - it is BA a/c.



...you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you shall return
User currently offlineba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8430 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 58538 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EK413 (Reply 19):
Was this a ex-BMI aircraft as I'm not educated on the BA/BMI A319 fleet registrations.

- No original BA machine, though I don't think that makes a difference.



111,732,3,4,5,7,8,BBJ,741,742,743,744,752,762,763,764,772,773,77W,L15,D10,30,40,AB3,AB6,A312.313,319,320,321,332,333,342
User currently offlinea380heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 58291 times:

It's possible looking at the damage to the cowling on the port engine that these passengers may well be extremely lucky that they got back to LHR - maybe today is a good day for them to do the lottery!

Congratulations to the crew for the safe outcome.



Flown in:732,733,734,738,742,752,763,772,F27,DC9,MD-11,A300,A332,ATR72,DHC-6,Bell206,C172,Auster,PA-28
User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2985 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 57868 times:

Please to hear the plane landed safely and everyone is OK...

What a mess that causes to UK airspace, when one runway closes!

There are some aircraft circling over south Wales, Herefordshire and the North Sea but the bulk seem to be queuing Buckinghamshire... Circling around the Aylesbury and High Wycombe area at around 15,000ft...

The only diversions I can see to Luton, are a BA flight from Oslo and a VS flight from Edinburgh.


User currently offlineba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8430 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 58138 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 23):
It's possible looking at the damage to the cowling on the port engine that these passengers may well be extremely lucky that they got back to LHR

- Not as bad as it looks really, there are numerous pictures on-line showing these having come off during flight.



111,732,3,4,5,7,8,BBJ,741,742,743,744,752,762,763,764,772,773,77W,L15,D10,30,40,AB3,AB6,A312.313,319,320,321,332,333,342
User currently offlinetcx69k From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2012, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 60995 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

But damage to the left engine cowling... However it was the right engine that was on fire/smoking!

User currently offlineaudidudi From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 61264 times:

What is interesting to me is that there is a missing cowling on the port engine probably as a result of a bird strike, and yet it was the starboard engine that I saw on fire as I reported earlier. So is it possible that both engines were involved in the bird strike?

User currently offlineplanefixer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 63856 times:

Reports saying LH engine lost fan cowls, and was shut down followed by surge on RH engine - hence the smoke as it was not shut down.

User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 63280 times:

Is it just me or are both cowlings missing? Images on BBC News appear to show the aircraft from the other side of the runway with a cowling missing from the right engine with no overwing chute deployed on that side. The images above show a chute deployed from the side with a cowling missing....

User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 791 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 63036 times:

It looks like an uncontained failure judging by the cowling?


A380 Crew
User currently offlineliquidair From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 63478 times:

You've got to laugh..

BBC news reporter saying this reminds her of BA flight from Beijing that crash landed due to problems with "undercarriage".

eh? Wtf?


User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 63306 times:

Quoting liquidair (Reply 31):
BBC news reporter saying this reminds her of BA flight from Beijing that crash landed due to problems with "undercarriage".

Well yeah the undercarriage separated from the fuselage - that's a pretty serious undercarriage problem   


User currently offlineliquidair From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 62420 times:

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 32):

Have I missed something?

Undercarriage separation was a consequence, not a cause?

as a side note... Wherever those cowlings came off..ouch.

How much damage could they do falling from height?

[Edited 2013-05-24 02:14:51]

User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 62375 times:

What's with BA202 ? can anyone see it's at 1400ft alt and landing in cardiff??

User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 62088 times:

Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 34):
Undercarriage separation was a consequence, not a cause?

Clearly my smiley wasn't sarcastic enough.


User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 62212 times:

http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW202

Strange one, why Cardiff?


User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2167 posts, RR: 7
Reply 36, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 62042 times:

Winds are slightly right of centerline at the moment in LHR, great airmanship to handle the tech issue and point the aircraft into the wind to minimise the fire risk.

User currently offlineCaptainDoony From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2011, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 62380 times:

Looking at the pictures the damage to the left engine looks really consistent with the cowling latching problems that have plagued the IAE V2500. Doesn't explain the right engine - maybe the off chance it has malfunctioned.

No surprise for me personally that's its G-EUOE, been on that bird twice now with it giving me 90 minute delays both times!

EDIT: Reports saying the right hand engine cowling is missing as well. Wonder I this aircraft was fresh out of maintenance.

[Edited 2013-05-24 02:30:40]


A319, A320, A321, A343, A388, AT7, B733, B734, B735, B738, B744, B752, B763, B772, B77W, CR7, DH4, E145, E175
User currently offlineliquidair From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 61738 times:

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 35):

Whoops, my bad!


User currently offlineeugegall From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2009, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 61557 times:

Quite serious damage by the looks of it.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b315/eugeclio172/ScreenShot2013-05-24at102612_zps4c3f7b89.png


User currently offlineGlobetraveller From Germany, joined Apr 2008, 379 posts, RR: 20
Reply 40, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 61408 times:

There are quite consistent reports now that one of the engines was, at one point, on fire. It is amazing from how many angles and how quickly we get to see incidents these days!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22652718


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6109 posts, RR: 9
Reply 41, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 60676 times:

Glad everyone is safe. Compared to the evacuation the other day, here we can see someone was smart enough to not evacuate where the fire was.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 60825 times:

Both engine covers clearly detached. Is that normal during a bird strike?

Any possibility they were not latched correctly in the first place causing the problem? Seems odd that both detached.

Glad it ended well.



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 60863 times:

I just haven't a clue why the plane went back to LHR. Apparently it flew over Essex before returning. Surely disruption and risk to urban areas (if the plane had crashed) would have been minimised if it had landed at SEN or STN?

Glad to hear everyone was evacuated ok!



Next Flights: LHR-LBA (319-SK), MAN-ARN (736-SK), ARN-LHR (763-BA), LHR-CPH (CR9-SK), CPH-LHR (320-SK), LHR-IAH (744-BA)
User currently offlinea380heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 60668 times:

What I was hinting at in my earlier reply (23) was the possibility that the starboard engine became inoperative due to the bird strike and subsequent fire, and maybe the port engine was ALSO damaged by a bird strike but still able to provide at least SOME thrust.

I'm assuming that the starboard engine was shut down following the fire and the aircraft limped home on the port engine. This would make earlier suggestions of an uncontained failure of the port engine unlikely.



Flown in:732,733,734,738,742,752,763,772,F27,DC9,MD-11,A300,A332,ATR72,DHC-6,Bell206,C172,Auster,PA-28
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6109 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 60313 times:

You always go to the main airport when possible, more fire trucks, more equipment, better runways, more ambulances, more hospitals. Disruption to the airspace is someone else problem.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 60435 times:

There must be something else caused this other than Bird Strike. Looks more serious than just bird strike to me.

User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 59752 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 45):
You always go to the main airport when possible, more fire trucks, more equipment, better runways, more ambulances, more hospitals. Disruption to the airspace is someone else problem.

Well STN has more than enough emergency coverage. It also has a very long runway.

Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 46):
There must be something else caused this other than Bird Strike. Looks more serious than just bird strike to me.

Well a birdstrike brought the US A320 flight down in the Hudson... That was pretty serious IIRC.



Next Flights: LHR-LBA (319-SK), MAN-ARN (736-SK), ARN-LHR (763-BA), LHR-CPH (CR9-SK), CPH-LHR (320-SK), LHR-IAH (744-BA)
User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 48, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 59951 times:

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 44):
I'm assuming that the starboard engine was shut down following the fire and the aircraft limped home on the port engine. This would make earlier suggestions of an uncontained failure of the port engine unlikely.

The video footage seems to show the aircraft was continuing to fly with the engine on fire. To me that suggests a failure in the port engine that was then shut down. Subsequently the starboard engine caught fire, and they had no choice but to continue with the engine on fire.

your theory does not explain the damage to the port engine.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineliquidair From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 59926 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 45):

I'm not sure flying back over London is such a good idea. Even with the river.
contingency plans couldn't possibly allow it... I hope. I live in London.

Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 46):

Big Bird strike?

Big version: Width: 423 Height: 279 File size: 39kb
bigbirdstrike


[Edited 2013-05-24 03:26:32]

User currently offlinetcx69k From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2012, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 59643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The opposite, left hand side...

http://i1248.photobucket.com/albums/hh498/TCX69K/IMG-20130524-WA0006_zps0876ef33.jpg


User currently offlineGLAGAZ From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2004, 1982 posts, RR: 11
Reply 51, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 59313 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 43):
I just haven't a clue why the plane went back to LHR. Apparently it flew over Essex before returning. Surely disruption and risk to urban areas (if the plane had crashed) would have been minimised if it had landed at SEN or STN?

Much easier to go to somewhere you're familiar with. You know the runways, you know the weather, you know the ILS frequency, you know the minima....Then you come on to things once you're on the ground such as proper engineering support is available for the aircraft and the passengers can be easily shifted on to another flight if they so wish.

First impressions are that this was a very well handled emergency and subsequent evacuation so kudos to the crew!



Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 58211 times:

Must have been pretty hectic up in the front seats. Do they do anything like this on the simulators?

User currently offlineGLAGAZ From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2004, 1982 posts, RR: 11
Reply 53, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 57841 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 52):
Do they do anything like this on the simulators?

Engine fires and evacuations? Definitely!



Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 57859 times:

Quoting GLAGAZ (Reply 51):
Much easier to go to somewhere you're familiar with. You know the runways, you know the weather, you know the ILS frequency, you know the minima....Then you come on to things once you're on the ground such as proper engineering support is available for the aircraft and the passengers can be easily shifted on to another flight if they so wish.

First impressions are that this was a very well handled emergency and subsequent evacuation so kudos to the crew!

Agree. Also STN/LTN only have one runway so airport would effectively be closed. At least LHR has the other, even though disruption will still be significant. The important things are familiarity, pilot preference (at the end the day they're in charge) and ground support.

Flight history on BA Source doesn't show any trips to Prestwick in last month. Obviously line maintenance is done at LHR as well.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 55, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 57773 times:

The responsibilties of a PIC is first and foremost to his passengers, crew and aircraft. Everything else is secondary to those priorities, and if the skipper decides he want to go back to LHR for whatever safety reason he has chosen, then so be it.


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 57698 times:

No any press for Captain or F/O yet?? would love to see heros.

User currently offlinemah584jr From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 56986 times:

Keeping a close eye on this as I'm delayed 4 hours in Istanbul because of this incident. Please keep the updates coming. Thankful everyone is ok!

-mah584jr


User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 189 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 56753 times:

Very lucky and a very good outcome/performance from all involved.
As the evacuation was only carried out on the left side - it is safe to assume that the fire was on the right ( as evident in the video). So the crew wouldn´t open the doors on that side for safety reasons.
The inflight picture shows the right engine without it´s cowling and damage on the wing, which could have come from either large birds or the parting cowling itself.
So probably both engines were damaged.
A fire in an engine does not necessarily mean a loss of thrust.

Good job they didn´t have to end up in the Thames- depending on where - they however probably could have gotten to the bank over the wing without getting their feet wet!


User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 189 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 56562 times:

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 58):
The inflight picture shows the right engine without it´s cowling

Sorry - meant the LEFT engine , of course


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 60, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 56234 times:

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 54):
The important things are familiarity, pilot preference (at the end the day they're in charge) and ground support.

One would think the important thing would be to get the a/c on the ground as soon as possible, since most flight crew now carry computers and the flight departments ensure that they are updated, knowing the airport you are heading into is less of an issue since you are not concerned about taking the wrong exit or parking in the wrong spot. Pilots are trained to fly so the flight specifics of landing at a new airport should be no problem.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 55):
The responsibilties of a PIC is first and foremost to his passengers, crew and aircraft.

The PIC in charge is always front and center when an accident happens, for daily operations what is required for financial viability by management usually takes precedence, see this site numerous non-accident threads.

Glad to know that all pax are safe and sound, look forward to hearing the actual details on the initial cause of the incident.


User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 56085 times:

Great that everything ended without any harm to passengers. But time to think about adding some runways to LHR.


Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 56046 times:

Quoting mah584jr (Reply 57):

You sure because of this incidence your flight is delayed?


User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 55985 times:

Quoting liquidair (Reply 49):

I know big bird strike but would it causes engine cowling to ripoff like that?


User currently offlineggflyboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 56080 times:

I guess its early to speculate, but the lack of cowling on both sides is suspicious. Engineering models in design usually account for one failed latch, but not all latches open. So, leaving the latches open could separate parts from the aircraft in flight (only gust loading on the ground is accounted for the design phase).

So... Failure to latch or faulty latches, perhaps combined with a blown duct on the RH side? Not exactly sure how the plumbing works on this particular engine. Even a blown duct isn't supposed to separate parts from the aircraft, if that indeed were the root cause and not some sort of latch issue.

I don't think uncontained failure is likely on either side. Both casings themselves look intact, and at least one engine was (partly) operable.

There is also the chance that the cowling was removed for fire-fighting purposes, but I've never seen that before. Sounds like a pretty unhelpful/dangerous thing to do if there was an active fire.

In any case, glad everyone is made it down safely. The investigators will have fun piecing this one together.

[Edited 2013-05-24 03:37:58]

[Edited 2013-05-24 03:38:49]

User currently offlineliquidair From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 56167 times:

Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 63):

first time image didn't upload.... check my reply (49) again!
     


User currently offlinemah584jr From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 55805 times:

Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 62):
You sure because of this incidence your flight is delayed?

Yeah, I'm flying THY1985. It was supposed to depart at 13:10 local and now shows a departure time of 17:10. When they announced a delay that large I knew it was more than an aircraft problem.


User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 55222 times:

Quoting liquidair (Reply 65):

Hahah...I saw tht now....wooooshhhh,,,,good stuff.

Quoting mah584jr (Reply 66):

I C. Hope you able to spend some good time. Cheers.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 55063 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 60):
One would think the important thing would be to get the a/c on the ground as soon as possible, since most flight crew now carry computers and the flight departments ensure that they are updated, knowing the airport you are heading into is less of an issue since you are not concerned about taking the wrong exit or parking in the wrong spot. Pilots are trained to fly so the flight specifics of landing at a new airport should be no problem.

Of course getting on the ground safely is the primary concern, I was stating more in terms of importance over ATC ops/disruption etc. In this case though, as every BA pilot flies in and out of LHR all the time, they don't need computers and information as much so can concentrate on managing the problem and flying the aircraft. Even for just basic positioning they will know eactly where they are, where to line up and what heights to be at. Minimising workload in this type of situation is invaluable.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4685 posts, RR: 4
Reply 69, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 54561 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 19):
Quoting vikinga346 (Reply 20):

Thank you   

Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 21):
Quoting EK413 (Reply 19):
Was this a ex-BMI aircraft as I'm not educated on the BA/BMI A319 fleet registrations.

- No original BA machine, though I don't think that makes a difference.

Doesn't make any difference at all. It was a simple question with a simple answer.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineMerlinIIIB From Norway, joined Aug 2005, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 54314 times:

Photo and video show missing inner & outer cowlings on both engines. Passenger have told Norwegian press about cowlings separating with corresponding loud bang at moment of rotation ...

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 53923 times:

Quoting MerlinIIIB (Reply 70):
Passenger have told Norwegian press about cowlings separating with corresponding loud bang at moment of rotation ...

If that is true, sounds more and more like someone forgot to latch the cowlings. Will lead to some very red faces in within BA...  Wow!


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 72, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 53608 times:

I saw some pictures on twitter and hearing what this guy said (he's the one that put images up when the aircraft landed and described the pop after rotation) it would appear the cowlings were, most possibly not fixed correctly.

There are some clear close-up shot on the daily mail website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...plane-makes-emergency-landing.html

It does seem mightily odd that both cowlings seperated - also I can't see any tell tale signs of a bird strike along the wings and fuselage.

BA described is as a 'technical' incident.

Anybody know if this aircraft was operating yesterday? Was it in for maintenance?

NOTE - there is also a passenger video at the above daily mail link of the A/C on approach to LHR overlooking the LH engine minus the cowling.

[Edited 2013-05-24 04:19:11]

The aircraft was operating its first flight of the day - having arrived inbound Stavagner the previous evening.

http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/GEUOE


[Edited 2013-05-24 04:27:00]


146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12881 posts, RR: 12
Reply 73, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 53044 times:

With problems with panels on both engines, one has to wonder if there is a mx procedural issue. The fasteners may be over torqued, or just missed, not double checked upon reattachment of the panels. You could also have bad, worn or damaged fasteners as well worn or damaged attachment points for them. The possibility of what happened will likely come out in the investigation.

User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 52876 times:

How would the removal of the cowlings cause the apparent engine fire?

User currently offline777 From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 514 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 52585 times:

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 74):
How would the removal of the cowlings cause the apparent engine fire?

That's exactly my question too!


User currently offlineMerlinIIIB From Norway, joined Aug 2005, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 52260 times:

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 74):
How would the removal of the cowlings cause the apparent engine fire?

Disruption of the air flow during separation, compressor stall...?


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 77, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 52026 times:

Quoting 777 (Reply 75):

Could force not pull with it some small parts - causing elements of the engine to contact and burn?

Fractured a pipe or something like that?

It is obvious that whatever the problem was, the fire wasn't able to be extinguished - hence the smoke on approach so something was still burning. Also there is a lot of smoke deposits outside on the side of the engine... indicating that fire possibly came from the pipes/exposed engine?

Pictures of both engines below:



[Edited 2013-05-24 04:45:46]

[Edited 2013-05-24 04:46:30]


146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 51962 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Guardian has nice video http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/vide...emergency-landing-from-plane-video

Any thoughts about it??



Flying high and low
User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 51261 times:

Quoting btblue (Reply 77):
Could force not pull with it some small parts - causing elements of the engine to contact and burn?

Fractured a pipe or something like that?

Don't forget both engine cowlings are missing...

I'll admit at this stage it's got me stumped!


User currently offlineplanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 80, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 51426 times:

From a pilot's perspective, it sounds very much like a non-event to me. EFATOs, engine fire drills and single engine operations are taught and tested from the first day you ever step into a multi-engine piston aircraft. It will be covered extensively in type rating and re-covered in sim checks.

Of course, from a passenger's perspective it is much more dramatic, and such a description of the event won't sell the Daily Mail any newspapers.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 51152 times:

Quoting btblue (Reply 72):
There are some clear close-up shot on the daily mail website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html

It says "British Airways has said it has cancelled all its short-haul flights in and out of Heathrow until 4pm today following the emergency landing.".

Wonder if that is to clear backlog caused by the runways being closed, or to inspect the cowlings, or both.

[Edited 2013-05-24 04:56:25]

User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 51249 times:

The PIC is getting kudos from the Airline Pilots Association for pointing the aircraft into the wind after landing to ensure any flames were not blown onto the fuselage...

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 50756 times:

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 74):
How would the removal of the cowlings cause the apparent engine fire?

Also why would it cause one engine to apparently shut down?


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 50754 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 81):

Take what they say with a pinch of salt... Both runways appear to be operating now - at least from what I can tell in flightradar24.com

Sorry - you're right. I wonder if it's to check its fleet?

[Edited 2013-05-24 04:56:04]


146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 85, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 50778 times:

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 82):
The PIC is getting kudos from the Airline Pilots Association for pointing the aircraft into the wind after landing to ensure any flames were not blown onto the fuselage...

Smart move - memories of the British Airtours 737-200 accident, 1985 in Manchester... a lesson learned from that accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 791 posts, RR: 8
Reply 86, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 50515 times:

BA have canx all shorthaul departures ex LHR until 4pm.

ThomasCook



A380 Crew
User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 715 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 50636 times:

KLM will be operating a MD-11 into LHR this afternoon to carry delayed passengers:

- dep. AMS 15:15 - arr. LHR 15.30 - KL 1019 / McDonnell Douglas MD-11 / PH-KCE

[Edited 2013-05-24 05:18:25]

User currently offlinedraigonair From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 6
Reply 88, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 50647 times:

Also now on aviationherald;

http://avherald.com/h?article=462beb5e&opt=4096

The article says that first the left hand engine cowling doors came off and then during her return to London, the right hand engine cowling doors came off (both associated with a bang). Didn't say anything about shutting down an engine.



cheers
User currently offlinedraigonair From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 6
Reply 89, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 50556 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 87):
KLM will operating a MD-11 into LHR this afternoon to carry delayed passengers:

- dep. AMS 15:15 - arr. LHR 15.30 - KL 1019 / McDonnell Douglas MD-11 / PH-KCE

Anyone in for a 45min flight on the good old 11?  



cheers
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2927 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 50220 times:

From videos and photos, it always surprises me how many passengers evacuate with their hand luggage. Can really cause problems when evacuation times increase with hand luggage being taken out from under the seat or even worse, overhead lockers.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineMerlinIIIB From Norway, joined Aug 2005, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 49499 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 80):

From a pilot's perspective, it sounds very much like a non-event to me.

Even if both engines are affected incl. reduced performance?

[Edited 2013-05-24 05:11:34]

User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2584 posts, RR: 4
Reply 92, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 49370 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 81):

Wonder if that is to clear backlog caused by the runways being closed, or to inspect the cowlings, or both.

My guess is the former. LHR as we know is busy, busy, busy.

Why on earth did they shut both runways down? The plane was only stationary on one of them. I do not see how that would affect the other runway.

Unless of course it was to check for debris?!



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineodo From Finland, joined Jan 2005, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 49078 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 93):
Why on earth did they shut both runways down? The plane was only stationary on one of them. I do not see how that would affect the other runway.

When fire service is tied up with an accident, sufficient readiness can't be maintained for other traffic to operate normally.

//odo



Failure is always an option.
User currently offlineGLAGAZ From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2004, 1982 posts, RR: 11
Reply 94, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 48741 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 80):
From a pilot's perspective, it sounds very much like a non-event to me.

Certainly not a non-event!

Obviously the training covers this sort of thing extensively but to call it a non-event?!



Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 48708 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 93):
Why on earth did they shut both runways down? The plane was only stationary on one of them. I do not see how that would affect the other runway.

You want to clear traffic from the entire area so, if the aircraft needed to land on either runway for whatever reason it can do.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 48569 times:

Quoting btblue (Reply 72):
Anybody know if this aircraft was operating yesterday? Was it in for maintenance?

Flew Berlin, Paris, Stavanger yesterday. Obviously some line mx could have been done at LHR but not and heavy mx likely.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 97, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 48508 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 80):
From a pilot's perspective, it sounds very much like a non-event to me. EFATOs, engine fire drills and single engine operations are taught and tested from the first day you ever step into a multi-engine piston aircraft. It will be covered extensively in type rating and re-covered in sim checks.

Really dude? Dual engine failure on a twin engine airplane, is a non-event? What exactly qualifies as an "event" for you? A crash with everyone dead?  


User currently offlinekatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 98, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 48266 times:

It's purely speculative, but how about ground crews leaving cowlings on both engines unlocked / open after routine checks / maintenance before take-off. The cowlings opened after take-off, the left one without consequences, but the right one hit something causing a fire.

What else could cause BOTH cowlings to open / separate almost immediately after take-off?


User currently offlinesandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1039 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 47773 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting garpd (Reply 93):
Why on earth did they shut both runways down? The plane was only stationary on one of them. I do not see how that would affect the other runway. Unless of course it was to check for debris?!

I would imagine if the emergency services were responding to an incident then they would not be able to respond to another incident on the opposite runway?

Any debris would have been on the runway the aircraft landed on.

Thank goodness it all ended well.

Sandyb123



DC3, 727, 737, 744, 753, 777, A32X, A345, A388, ERJ145, E190, BaE146, D328, ATR72, Q400
User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1745 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 47948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

BBC had a small bit of tape from LHS inbound to LHR:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22655866

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 82):
The PIC is getting kudos from the Airline Pilots Association for pointing the aircraft into the wind after landing to ensure any flames were not blown onto the fuselage...

Looking at the BBC footage above it looks as if only the LHS chutes were used, good thinking in light of the history. Seems like a simple thing to think of sitting in out chairs but hard to focus when going into LHR knowing you will be evacuating.


User currently offlineLIFFY1A From Ireland, joined Jan 2008, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 47317 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 97):
Really dude? Dual engine failure on a twin engine airplane, is a non-event? What exactly qualifies as an "event" for you? A crash with everyone dead?

Was there a dual engine failure? And where in Planesarecool's post does he mention dual engine failure? He only mentions single engine operations. I do agree though that it isn't a non-event. Maybe an engineer forgot to lock the cowling, maybe the pilot on the walk-around forgot to check that the cowling was locked. But sure we'll find out in time.


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 948 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 46396 times:

Maybe birds hit both engines, just worse on the right?

User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 103, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 46276 times:

If the cowling disappeared from both engines then maybe it was a bird strike in both engines, with a fire developing in one? I am no expert but I guess it would go to explain why it happened like that. Or could there be feature built into the engine that ejects the cowling where there is a fire?


Next Flights: LHR-LBA (319-SK), MAN-ARN (736-SK), ARN-LHR (763-BA), LHR-CPH (CR9-SK), CPH-LHR (320-SK), LHR-IAH (744-BA)
User currently offlineplanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 104, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 46341 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 97):
Really dude? Dual engine failure on a twin engine airplane, is a non-event?

There wasn't a dual engine failure, there was a single engine failure or shut down. This is taught on your first, maybe second flight in a multi-engine aircraft and will be covered in every flight/sim check you do thereafter. If you can't handle an EFATO, you won't be flying for an airline.

Same applies for an engine fire, asymmetric flight, single-engine landings and full evacuations. It's nothing we're not trained for and it's exactly what we're paid to do.

What you consider an 'event' or 'non-event' is up to you. But I guarantee you won't see the PIC and FO of BA762 making public appearances as 'heroes', like we did after BA38/US1549. Of course they handled the situation well, but they were just doing the job they are trained and paid to do.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 105, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 46101 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 104):

There wasn't a dual engine failure, there was a single engine failure or shut down.

This was more than a routine single-engine IFSD though. Cowlings blown off both engines. One engine with flames coming out of it. Not clear if other engine was operating or not. Certainly not a non-event in my books.


User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 46047 times:

Speedbird Ops were advising incoming flights to also divert to Manston, Bournemouth or Southampton.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6109 posts, RR: 9
Reply 107, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 46070 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 47):
Well STN has more than enough emergency coverage. It also has a very long runway.

Pilots are prepared to come back to the runway they took off from in an emergency, that plays a role too.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 49):
I'm not sure flying back over London is such a good idea. Even with the river.
contingency plans couldn't possibly allow it... I hope. I live in London.

Well if you have to overfly London to circle to land, so be it, if people aren't happy they can try to get an airport built in the middle of nowhere. Then somehow houses will be built around it.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 46174 times:

Speedbird Ops ATC during diversions...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsuUAXB3AVY


User currently offlineSKC From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 45945 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 97):
Really dude? Dual engine failure on a twin engine airplane, is a non-event?

This wasn't a dual engine failure. I've not seen anywhere that states both engines failed.

On a related note, while I was at Ryan Intl, we were operating A320s (with V2500s) for FL. One lost it's inboard and outbound cowls from the left engine thanks to latches that weren't fastened properly just after departure from ATL (I believe).


User currently offlinespeedbird217 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 45853 times:

Glad everything turned out to be okay and safe. Even though I also wonder if it wouldn't be safer to divert to one of the airports in a less populated area. In the end you're not just responsible for saving the people on board but also on the ground. If you fly over Central London with 2 damaged engines that can't be very safe...
Landing on the Hudson is one thing, landing on the Thames is basically impossible!

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 99):
Any debris would have been on the runway the aircraft landed on.

Not necessarily. Reports say that the first cowling came off right after take-off, which would place it on or near the runway that the a/c was departing from. FOD can have catastrophic consequences (e.g. Concorde crash)...


User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 45686 times:

BBC news is reporting that BA has cancelled all its short-haul flights at LHR until at least 1600hrs today. Given that it's the holiday weekend that will cause lots of travel problems.

User currently offlinespeedbird217 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 45886 times:

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 111):
Given that it's the holiday weekend that will cause lots of travel problems.

Given that tomorrow is a Champions League Final with an expected 100,000 to 200,000 German fans coming to town this can't help either  


User currently offlinecornishsimon From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 45620 times:

Anyone have a complete list of diversions for all airlines ?


cs


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 948 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 45752 times:

http://avherald.com/h?article=462beb5e&opt=0

Good pic there.


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3930 posts, RR: 34
Reply 115, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 45610 times:

Quoting LIFFY1A (Reply 101):
Was there a dual engine failure

No,
having read the whole thread, and looked at Daily Mail pics, there was a failure of the fan cowls on both engines. First the left cowls, and later the right cowls. As the right cowls detached they damaged a fuel line on the right engine that caused a fire. With the cowling missing, the fire extinguisher won't work so the fire did not go out.
The fan cowls probably were not secured correctly. This is very difficult to see on this engine, unless you kneel down and specifically look. Just walking past and you cannot see that they are open.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 116, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 44864 times:

Wonder where the cowls landed and if they have been located... have seen no mention of if so far.

User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 44830 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 105):
This was more than a routine single-engine IFSD though. Cowlings blown off both engines. One engine with flames coming out of it. Not clear if other engine was operating or not. Certainly not a non-event in my books.

  

You just don't shut down LHR for a "non-event"....

And in the past, people who have been trained for a serious event, fail to execute the training when it really matters because they are mentally not prepared for it.


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 948 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 44574 times:

It sounds like the port engine cowling blew off early in the takeoff, and ATC reported this to the crew, who were then going to come back. Then while coming back, the starboard cowling let go, damaging the fuel or oil lines, and starting a fire.

User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 43785 times:

I know this is too early to say but first thing came to my mind was 'this is not only due to Bird Strike'. This must be some maintenance issue too.

I read this comment below on Aviation Herald, very interesting.

( That plane was in the hangar last night, It looks like the fan cowl latches weren't latched and blew off, The RH engine fire may have been caused by damage due to the fan cowl being ripped off. Most airlines have a requirement for 2 engineers to check the latches are locked after maintenance. BA don't have this requirement on Airbus aircraft )

Also what about inspection done by pilots before departure ? is it possible to detect faults related with pylons or cowling? I am not pilot or engineer but just asking as curiosity.

Thanks.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3134 posts, RR: 8
Reply 120, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 43918 times:

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 61):
But time to think about adding some runways to LHR.

I'm surprised it took 60 posts for that to be mentioned.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 71):
If that is true, sounds more and more like someone forgot to latch the cowlings. Will lead to some very red faces in within BA.

'Maybe' the 'hero' FO who 'might' have missed the 'possibly' unlatched cowlings?   



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinecuriousflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 43711 times:

So it looks like the aircraft went through routine maintenance overnight and the cowling latches for both engines were not shut.

During takeoff, one engine lost its cowling, then the other one lost its cowling too, and one of the engines had to be shut down while the other one could still operate but caught fire as a fuel line was broken when the cowling flew away.

The pilots landed back at LHR, which forced them to fly over London. They could have picked another airport but it is usually simpler, or apparently simpler, to land at the origin destination and they had to make quick decisions.

There were no victims but the plane and engines are quite damaged and LHR operations were significantly disturbed.


User currently offlineplanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 122, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 43541 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 105):
This was more than a routine single-engine IFSD though. Cowlings blown off both engines. One engine with flames coming out of it. Not clear if other engine was operating or not. Certainly not a non-event in my books.

But the pilots are trained to deal with an engine fire and would've been fully aware of which engines were operating. An 'event' to the passengers and witnesses maybe, but not to those up front. They would've diverted to a closer airport with a less dense surrounding population if they thought otherwise.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 118):
And in the past, people who have been trained for a serious event, fail to execute the training when it really matters because they are mentally not prepared for it.

If you can't remain calm during a 'routine' emergency, you shouldn't be flying an aircraft.


User currently offlinefoxxray From France, joined May 2005, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 43096 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 104):
There wasn't a dual engine failure, there was a single engine failure or shut down. This is taught on your first, maybe second flight in a multi-engine aircraft and will be covered in every flight/sim check you do thereafter. If you can't handle an EFATO, you won't be flying for an airline.

Same applies for an engine fire, asymmetric flight, single-engine landings and full evacuations. It's nothing we're not trained for and it's exactly what we're paid to do.

What you consider an 'event' or 'non-event' is up to you. But I guarantee you won't see the PIC and FO of BA762 making public appearances as 'heroes', like we did after BA38/US1549. Of course they handled the situation well, but they were just doing the job they are trained and paid to do.

As a pilot, i can tell you that an in flight engine failure is definitely NOT a non event !

From your pilot experience (?!), have you ever encountered a real engine failure (not during training, TR, ...) ? I do and i can tell you it wasn't a non event for me even if i am trained to handle this kind of situation...

Then, what is an event for you ? Something nobody have been trained to ?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 124, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 42982 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 123):

So both engines with cowlings blown off, the first one shut down as a precautionary measure, the second one on fire, no access to fire bottles as apparently you need the cowlings for those, and you still want to maintain it was a routine IFSD? Odd, but its your choice.


User currently offlinefoxxray From France, joined May 2005, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 42794 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 123):
But the pilots are trained to deal with an engine fire and would've been fully aware of which engines were operating. An 'event' to the passengers and witnesses maybe, but not to those up front. They would've diverted to a closer airport with a less dense surrounding population if they thought otherwise.
Quoting planesarecool (Reply 123):
If you can't remain calm during a 'routine' emergency, you shouldn't be flying an aircraft.

Are you really a pilot ? Where and on what ?

I already had one engine failure on a single engine aircraft and one on a multi engine... i handled both failure well (both aircrafts are still flying and so do i    ) and with calm but again these were not non events !!


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 126, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 42028 times:

Quoting LIFFY1A (Reply 101):
Was there a dual engine failure? And where in Planesarecool's post does he mention dual engine failure?
Quoting planesarecool (Reply 104):
There wasn't a dual engine failure, there was a single engine failure or shut down.

Earlier reports stated that one engine was shutdown and the seocnd engine was on fire. Nevertheless, I don't think it's normal for A319's to fly around with the cowlings off the engines. So there was a failure of some sort on both engines. Whether there's more to it then just the cowlings coming off we don't know at this point.


User currently offlineLIFFY1A From Ireland, joined Jan 2008, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 41423 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 128):
Earlier reports stated that one engine was shutdown and the seocnd engine was on fire. Nevertheless, I don't think it's normal for A319's to fly around with the cowlings off the engines. So there was a failure of some sort on both engines. Whether there's more to it then just the cowlings coming off we don't know at this point.

There wasn't a dual engine failure, regardless of 'a failure of some sort on both engines'. If there was, we'd be reading about a completely different situation right now. Something more like what happened in the Hudson.


User currently offlineEASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 40168 times:

This is why I avoid 2 engine jets across the pond.....................................

User currently offlineTheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 39136 times:

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 128):

UK, Europe flying across pond you hardly get to see quad engine jet. So no luxury to decide that I am afraid. Only Trans Atlantic flights and LHR-MAD rest most of the EU-Britain flights would be twin jet.


User currently offlinefoxxray From France, joined May 2005, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 38923 times:

Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 129):
UK, Europe flying across pond you hardly get to see quad engine jet. So no luxury to decide that I am afraid. Only Trans Atlantic flights and LHR-MAD rest most of the EU-Britain flights would be twin jet.

I think EASTERN747 was meaning across the atlantic ocean  

BAE/Avro are flying daily from the UK to mainland Europe daily  


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 131, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 38777 times:

I indicated very early on the likelihood of the cowlings not being latched correctly.

Fire resulting due to the casing being ripped from the engine, damaging it. The other engine seeing similar problems but no fire later into the short flight, Both cowlings detached at different times and not at the same time... Minutes apart.

There was NO dual engine fire/failure.

This all looks like a mechanical issue, but happy to be proved wrong... By a sarrow or a hawk... Or even a manky London pigeon.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 128):

Give it 20 years and you'll be getting a boat then.



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 132, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 38751 times:

Who was the idiot filming this. If the landing was not so nice he could have caused a serious injury to somebody around him and then he took it with him off the aircraft. What an idiot.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 133, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 38353 times:

Speculation is fun, so I’ll try.

This doesn’t look like a bird strike to me. The front of the engines are clean. The leading edge of the wing, nose and flight deck windows are clean.

Both cowlings falling off in flight makes this sound like it is a technical problem with the airplane and seems to imply it could have been maintenance induced. I’d be curious to see the maintenance records for what happened overnight. It’s the first flight of the day, so it could have had some overnight maintenance that opened up the cowls and someone didn’t follow the correct procedure when closing them.

ETOPS maintenance programs are supposed to prevent this. Obviously a BA A319 isn’t ETOPS, but that’s why you don’t have the same person do the same task on both engines in the same maintenance visit. If they make a mistake, you eliminated the redundancy of having two engines.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 134, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 38044 times:

A friend of mine was onboard this flight and he told me the first cowling on the right hand engine fell of with a bang just after rotation. The take-off continued and pilots prepared landing. Then 3 minutes before landing the right hand engine caught fire while descending to LHR. Same engine as the one loosing cowling on takeoff. Left side lost cowling and both cowlings hit the fuselage. No power in cabin and a sudden bank happened after engine fire. But in my friends opinion the pilots handled the situation very well and so did BA after the incident. But he is shaky after this incident.

The situation became gradually worse as the flight progressed but the pilots did handled the developing emergencies well.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinenclmedic From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 37713 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 133):
I’d be curious to see the maintenance records for what happened overnight. It’s the first flight of the day, so it could have had some overnight maintenance that opened up the cowls and someone didn’t follow the correct procedure when closing them.

Bird was working last night as BA747 STV-LHR, arrived in 2138 (not particularly late) so unlikely that any *heavy* maintenance was done on her between then and leaving this morning.


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 37146 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 115):
No,
having read the whole thread, and looked at Daily Mail pics, there was a failure of the fan cowls on both engines. First the left cowls, and later the right cowls. As the right cowls detached they damaged a fuel line on the right engine that caused a fire. With the cowling missing, the fire extinguisher won't work so the fire did not go out.
The fan cowls probably were not secured correctly. This is very difficult to see on this engine, unless you kneel down and specifically look. Just walking past and you cannot see that they are open.

I think this is the most logical theory suggested so far.
It really does seem like the cowlings were not secured after maintenance, and sheared off once the speed increased after take-off, and one of them hit a fuel line while detaching.

A lot of other posts on this thread such as double engine failure theories are rubbish.


User currently offlinea380heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 36956 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 133):

  

Its incredible how the news was initially reporting that "the pilot reported a birdstrike on the Boeing A319" but not nearly as incredible as its looking now that both cowlings either came undone, or were left undone by the maintenance crew!

The outcome of this incident could have been so different - just imagine a double engine failure at relatively low altitude, over one of the most densely populated areas of the UK!



Flown in:732,733,734,738,742,752,763,772,F27,DC9,MD-11,A300,A332,ATR72,DHC-6,Bell206,C172,Auster,PA-28
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 138, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 36519 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 136):
A lot of other posts on this thread such as double engine failure theories are rubbish.

Also, there's no indication of even a single engine failure or infligtht shutdown, correct?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 139, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 36479 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 136):

A lot of other posts on this thread such as double engine failure theories are rubbish.

Don't think I have seen anyone post it was a double engine failure on this thread once the pictures came out -- it became quite clear to all then then it looked more like a double engine *cowling* failure, likely due to unfastened latches, along with one damaged engine as it had evidently been damaged by the departing cowling and clearly been on fire.

It still is unclear though whether the left engine had been shut as a precaution after the cowlings flew off. Either way, not a trivial event at all.

[Edited 2013-05-24 09:24:25]

User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2074 posts, RR: 1
Reply 140, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 36893 times:

...And here's a photo of G-EUOE in the database from this morning:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex Sandro Vicente Barbosa




Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineN821NW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 141, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 36310 times:

It will be interesting to read the final report...now time to get my A319 out of the X-Plane hangar and try to recreate the situation   

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 142, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 36037 times:

Quoting nclmedic (Reply 135):

Bird was working last night as BA747 STV-LHR, arrived in 2138 (not particularly late) so unlikely that any *heavy* maintenance was done on her between then and leaving this morning.

There are some very frequent maintenance checks that require the cowls to be opened. Engine oil, IDG oil, and filter checks are all done on the line between heavy maintenance checks and are easily accomplished on an overnight sit. I don't know the specific of the A319 maintenance program, but some of those have to be checked every few weeks. If the same person did the checks on both sides and didn't shut the cowls correctly, then this is what can happen.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 35802 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 139):
It still is unclear though whether the left engine had been shut as a precaution after the cowlings flew off.

It's unlikely a functioning engine would be purposely shut down because a cowling was lost.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 35393 times:

Quoting N821NW (Reply 141):
time to get my A319 out of the X-Plane hangar and try to recreate the situation

X-Plane is better than I thought if it can simmulate engine cowlings detaching in flight.  


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 145, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 35317 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 143):

It's unlikely a functioning engine would be purposely shut down because a cowling was lost.

Perhaops one of the pilots can comment on this. I think it was speculated that it may have been shut down as a precaution.


User currently offlineWesternDC6B From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 146, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 35030 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The article on Sky News clearly identifies it as an Airbus, and the first comment I read is a snide remark about the 737. That's either a reading comprehension problem, or it carries the A vs B debate to a new level of silliness.


Be kind to animals - Take a grizzly to lunch today.
User currently offlineN821NW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 147, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 34875 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 144):
X-Plane is better than I thought if it can simmulate engine cowlings detaching in flight.

Well...maybe not that part of the problem but I can simulate the engine failure and engine fire.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 34685 times:

Quoting N821NW (Reply 147):
but I can simulate the engine failure

What engine failure?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 145):
I think it was speculated that it may have been shut down as a precaution.

Emphasis probably on "it was speculated." I would think this incident is an object lesson for why a functioning engine would not be shut down as a precaution. They very quickly had a second engine-related problem.

[Edited 2013-05-24 10:08:40] (for confusion over "speculation" and "precaution")

[Edited 2013-05-24 10:10:43]

User currently offlinemy1le From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 34566 times:

What would cause BOTH engine cowlings to be blown off the airframe?

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 150, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 34727 times:

That engine looks really messed up.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 140):
...And here's a photo of G-EUOE in the database from this morning:

I reeaaaaaallly hate the position of that watermark right now (and hate being a Premium member)   



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineN821NW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 151, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 34478 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 148):
What engine failure?

Ok, the engine shut down and engine fire.


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 34548 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 139):
It still is unclear though whether the left engine had been shut as a precaution after the cowlings flew off. Either way, not a trivial event at all.

That engine was still running and even used for reverse thrust after touchdown.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 139):
looked more like a double engine *cowling* failure

Interesting terminology.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 34588 times:

Quoting my1le (Reply 149):
What would cause BOTH engine cowlings to be blown off the airframe?

165 kts of air flow.   (Sorry,couldn't resist.)

Actually, a number a of posters have speculated that a mx tech failed to latch the cowlings and the pilot doing the pre-flight failed to spot this.

[Edited 2013-05-24 10:18:53]

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 154, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 34344 times:

Quoting LIFFY1A (Reply 127):
There wasn't a dual engine failure, regardless of 'a failure of some sort on both engines'. If there was, we'd be reading about a completely different situation right now. Something more like what happened in the Hudson.

I think you're confusing engine shutdown or catastrophic failure with just a mere failure. I stand by my statement and anyone with reasonale reading skills would agree I think. Engine cowls coming off from1 engine let alone 2 engines is NOT NORMAL. That implies a failure of some sort. Whether is was just the latches that failed or something else it is still a failure and an uncontained failure by the looks of it.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 34052 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 154):
I think you're confusing engine shutdown or catastrophic failure with just a mere failure

I think most posters on these forums would understand "engine failure" to mean that the engine has ceased producing any significant amount of power.


User currently offlineMd88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1329 posts, RR: 21
Reply 156, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 33801 times:

Looks like the engine cowlings were left unlatched or partially latched leading to them flying open on departure. That is a big deal in that four sets of eyes would have missed them being unlatched. Original maintenance, supervising mechanic doing the sign off, mechanic doing the first flight walk around, and the last line of defense - a pilot doing his walk around. Big, multi-layered screw up. Imagine the cost of lost revenue today. And the damage to the aircraft both in direct cost and lost revenue will be significant.

There will be lots of finger pointing on this deal with the mechs saying "I closed them". The pilot is the only one who will be unable to say someone opened them after he checked them.

[Edited 2013-05-24 10:48:45]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 157, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 33793 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 152):
That engine was still running and even used for reverse thrust after touchdown.

You are right... just spotted the reverse thrust activation on watching the video again.


User currently offlineLIFFY1A From Ireland, joined Jan 2008, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 33201 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 154):
I think you're confusing engine shutdown or catastrophic failure with just a mere failure. I stand by my statement and anyone with reasonale reading skills would agree I think. Engine cowls coming off from1 engine let alone 2 engines is NOT NORMAL. That implies a failure of some sort. Whether is was just the latches that failed or something else it is still a failure and an uncontained failure by the looks of it.

No I'm not confused. I know exactly what an engine failure is and there was no dual engine failure here. You can stand by your statement all you want but you're the only one on this forum saying dual engine failure.

By the way, an uncontained engine failure relates to the components within the engine exiting the engine through the cowling and not just the cowling itself separating from the engine.


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9568 posts, RR: 11
Reply 159, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 33107 times:

Amazing but luckily everything ended well. It's also amazing how today's technology makes these very detailed and high quality films and photos available to the public so quickly.

One of the posts says that the aircraft involved had just come out of maintenance the day before and that both engine cowlings were not locked by the maintenance crew. Is this really true or is this a bird strike as also mentioned or maybe a combination of both?

A388


User currently offlinecubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 397 posts, RR: 5
Reply 160, posted (11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 31400 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 122):
But the pilots are trained to deal with an engine fire and would've been fully aware of which engines were operating


Indeed they would be. However, this was not your "usual" situation. During or shortly after takeoff, the left engine cowling came off, as evidenced by the photograph taken by a passenger who took a picture of it prior to becoming (as the pax stated) airborne. I'm sure that the pilots would have noticed any abnormal instrumentation.

Then, at a later time (minutes or seconds) the right engine cowling left the aircraft. Obviously, when it departed it did some sort of damage to the underlying tubings which caused a fire. The pilots may have had some abnormal warnings this time. I don't think at any time they (pilots) would have considered this as a normal "trained for" situation.

At this stage in the investigation of the incident, I don't think it is appropriate to question or criticize any of the crew's actions taken.

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 122):
If you can't remain calm during a 'routine' emergency, you shouldn't be flying an aircraft.

Who has said anything about the crew "NOT REMAINING CALM" during this incident or emergency? I do think that you are being too judgmental (although you may have your opinion) with way too little information or experience.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3522 posts, RR: 12
Reply 161, posted (11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 30862 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 143):
It's unlikely a functioning engine would be purposely shut down because a cowling was lost.

But it's very likely that one would be shut down that was on fire.

The video of the landing that someone posted earlier shows a pretty significant crab on landing. It would surprise me if the right engine was still operating at that point.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7258 posts, RR: 17
Reply 162, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 30466 times:

Quoting cornishsimon (Reply 113):
Anyone have a complete list of diversions for all airlines ?

Twenty-one BA diversions variously to AMS (1), BOH (1), CWL (3), LGW (7), LTN (3), MSE (2) and STN (4) are detailed here:

http://www.thebasource.com/


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8094 posts, RR: 24
Reply 163, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 30049 times:

People are saying birdstrikes…do we know this to be the cause?

It seems to me I've seen this many times before…

http://www.cuckoo.com/~dbaker/airtranengine.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/...tam-engine-cowling-630-260x152.jpg

http://i1.sinaimg.cn/jc/2013/0218/U6634P1247DT20130218145630.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd208/robbreid/JetBlue.jpg

Air Tran, TAM, Iberea, JetBlue, now BA… and I'm sure there are others. This seems to be an endemic and pressing safety issue, along with "nosewheel canting", on Airbus narrowbodies. Has anything been done to correct these faults?

[Edited 2013-05-24 12:17:45]


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 164, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 29939 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 165):
This seems to be an endemic and pressing safety issue, along with "nosewheel canting", on Airbus narrowbodies. Has anything been done to correct these faults?

You're trolling right? Or perhaps forgot the smilies?


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8094 posts, RR: 24
Reply 165, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 29636 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 166):
You're trolling right? Or perhaps forgot the smilies?

Why would I put smilies?? I'm asking, given that this aircraft has just landed with an engine fire and 2 failed engine cowlings, if there is a connection to these other incidents, and if anything has been done to correct the issue, as apparently it is one.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 166, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 29050 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 166):
Why would I put smilies?? I'm asking, given that this aircraft has just landed with an engine fire and 2 failed engine cowlings, if there is a connection to these other incidents, and if anything has been done to correct the issue, as apparently it is one.

So you believe birds are disproportionately attracted to Airbus aircraft? And somehow Airbus is responsible for cowling latches being left open, as appears may well have been the case?  


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 167, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 28856 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 162):
Quoting hivue (Reply 143):
It's unlikely a functioning engine would be purposely shut down because a cowling was lost.

But it's very likely that one would be shut down that was on fire.

Correct. I should have qualified by saying "properly functioning." It will be interesting to learn what sort of messages the crew were getting.


User currently offlinetcx69k From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2012, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 168, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 27975 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There was reports from the operating crew of yesterday's SVG that vibrations/noises could be felt/heard in the cabin. This no doubt prompted the aircraft to be sent to the hangar for inspection overnight. Where it seems, as mentioned, that the cowlings were not latched closed properly. We will just have to wait and see if that is exactly what happened.

User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 169, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 27851 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 161):
The video of the landing that someone posted earlier shows a pretty significant crab on landing. It would surprise me if the right engine was still operating at that point.

Would you crab a landing for an engine out? I think you would just trim out the adverse yaw and land normally. Isn't crabbing reserved for crosswinds?


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 170, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 27794 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 80):
From a pilot's perspective, it sounds very much like a non-event to me.

Losing one and having a fire in another is a "non-event?" I'm sorry, but this sort of minimization of what could have been a major accident with mass loss of life just irritates me. In fact, as a professional with experience in MANY life-and-death emergencies, anyone on my team showing that sort of casual bravado over an actual emergency would find themselves off my team quickly. A basic tenet of professionalism in those fields that involve life-and-death emergencies is: be able to recognize such an emergency.

Maybe you DO train in the sims to have one engine out (although now that seems unclear) and the other on fire, but I'm pretty sure you'd feel differently about the entire thing after the event when you're in a plane and not in a sim where you know that you're at about 20ft AGL at all times, no matter how "realistic" the sim.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 128):
This is why I avoid 2 engine jets across the pond.....................................

If you're going to have a dual-engine failure due to birdstrike, it's going to happen in the first few minutes before you start the crossing. And, frankly, if the flock was large enough to put out two engines, it probably would have put out all four on a quad.


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 948 posts, RR: 0
Reply 171, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 27725 times:

The "engine fire" is probably just from leaking fluid igniting on something hot, and not actually an engine fire, if you will.

Shut the fluid flow off, and the fire is gone.

[Edited 2013-05-24 13:24:08]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 172, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 27585 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 170):
And, frankly, if the flock was large enough to put out two engines, it probably would have put out all four on a quad.

And if somehow the cowlings on all four engines were left unlatched, the chances of four sets of departing cowlings damaging the aircraft or engines would double relative to two sets of departing cowlings.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8094 posts, RR: 24
Reply 173, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 27586 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 166):
So you believe birds are disproportionately attracted to Airbus aircraft? And somehow Airbus is responsible for cowling latches being left open, as appears may well have been the case?

Did you comprehend what I said or are you just purposely being difficult for sport?

Quoting hivue (Reply 169):
Would you crab a landing for an engine out? I think you would just trim out the adverse yaw and land normally

You really can't "trim out" the adverse yaw created by having a dead engine. The crab is a consequence of the asymmetric thrust, not so much a technique, as it is in crosswind landings.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 174, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 27041 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 173):
Did you comprehend what I said or are you just purposely being difficult for sport?

Well you wrote...

Quoting N766UA (Reply 163):
People are saying birdstrikes…do we know this to be the cause?

It seems to me I've seen this many times before…

... when it was pretty clear that opinion was moving away from birdstrikes and moving to dual cowling separation.

You then post a bunch of photos of A320-family cowling separations, not caring to distinguish between IAE and CFM engines, as both feature in your photos with missing cowlings.

Cowlings coming off can happen and do happen, but can hardly be linked to a particular airframe type especially if it is happening to engines from two different manufacturers. Plus I do not think there has been a case of both engines losing their cowlings within minutes of each other, which strongly suggest something other than a cowling failure as so many on this thread have pointed out.

So apologies if I over-reacted, but it seemed like an Airbus-bashing troll to me.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 175, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 26698 times:

Quoting Md88Captain (Reply 156):
Looks like the engine cowlings were left unlatched or partially latched leading to them flying open on departure. That is a big deal in that four sets of eyes would have missed them being unlatched. Original maintenance, supervising mechanic doing the sign off, mechanic doing the first flight walk around, and the last line of defense - a pilot doing his walk around. Big, multi-layered screw up. Imagine the cost of lost revenue today. And the damage to the aircraft both in direct cost and lost revenue will be significant.

The regulators are very sensitive about maintenance induced damage and not following procedures correctly. We’ll likely never know since I doubt an Airworthiness Directive would be issued over it, but I bet some form of corrective action will happen at BA over this.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 170):
Quoting planesarecool (Reply 80):
From a pilot's perspective, it sounds very much like a non-event to me.

Losing one and having a fire in another is a "non-event?" I'm sorry, but this sort of minimization of what could have been a major accident with mass loss of life just irritates me. In fact, as a professional with experience in MANY life-and-death emergencies, anyone on my team showing that sort of casual bravado over an actual emergency would find themselves off my team quickly. A basic tenet of professionalism in those fields that involve life-and-death emergencies is: be able to recognize such an emergency.

Maybe you DO train in the sims to have one engine out (although now that seems unclear) and the other on fire, but I'm pretty sure you'd feel differently about the entire thing after the event when you're in a plane and not in a sim where you know that you're at about 20ft AGL at all times, no matter how "realistic" the sim.

I think he is just a kid not knowing what he is talking about. According to the FAA Significant Reportable events are diversions, air turn backs, rejected takeoffs, and in flight shutdowns. This event was 2 out of the 4 and is a significant reportable event. EASA will probably require BA to implement some form of corrective action (likely a note in the maintenance manual to ensure latches are closed) because it is so serious. Some airlines even paint their latches in obvious colors to help identify problems. Significant events are usually 1 failure away from catastrophic crash. A cowling separating from the engine can take out a fuel or oil line, which means that engine is headed towards shutdown.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 171):
The "engine fire" is probably just from leaking fluid igniting on something hot, and not actually an engine fire, if you will.

Shut the fluid flow off, and the fire is gone.

Very true, but depending on what was leaking, the only way to shutoff fluid flow may be by pulling the fire handles, but not discharging the fire suppressant, which might as well have been an engine fire because that will take out the engine.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 176, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 26594 times:

Quoting oykie (Reply 134):
A friend of mine was onboard this flight and he told me the first cowling on the right hand engine fell of with a bang just after rotation. The take-off continued and pilots prepared landing. Then 3 minutes before landing the right hand engine caught fire while descending to LHR. Same engine as the one loosing cowling on takeoff. Left side lost cowling and both cowlings hit the fuselage. No power in cabin and a sudden bank happened after engine fire. But in my friends opinion the pilots handled the situation very well and so did BA after the incident. But he is shaky after this incident.

The situation became gradually worse as the flight progressed but the pilots did handled the developing emergencies well.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 139):
It still is unclear though whether the left engine had been shut as a precaution after the cowlings flew off. Either way, not a trivial event at all.

Sankaps, according to my friend on the plane that I quoted in my earlier post says the right engine cowling fell of during take-off. This was the one engine that caught fire. The left engine and working engine lost its cowling later in the flight.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 170):
Losing one and having a fire in another is a "non-event?" I'm sorry, but this sort of minimization of what could have been a major accident with mass loss of life just irritates me. In fact, as a professional with experience in MANY life-and-death emergencies, anyone on my team showing that sort of casual bravado over an actual emergency would find themselves off my team quickly. A basic tenet of professionalism in those fields that involve life-and-death emergencies is: be able to recognize such an emergency.

According to my friend onboard this was a very big event, especially one minute after the engine caught fire just two minutes before landing, the plane had high degree bank, electricity was lost in the cabin and before the pilot got the plane level again it was a scary. That being said he told me the pilots and cabin crew was experienced and handled the developing emergency very well.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineplanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 177, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 26817 times:

Quoting cubastar (Reply 160):
Who has said anything about the crew "NOT REMAINING CALM" during this incident or emergency? I do think that you are being too judgmental (although you may have your opinion) with way too little information or experience.

Nobody. Perhaps you'd like to re-read the quote I was referring to (my apologies, I forgot everything had to be explained literally on this forum):

"And in the past, people who have been trained for a serious event, fail to execute the training when it really matters because they are mentally not prepared for it."

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 170):
A basic tenet of professionalism in those fields that involve life-and-death emergencies is: be able to recognize such an emergency.

Well seeing as we're in the mood for being patronising, here's another: remain calm enough to deal with the situation to the best of your ability, without being impaired by panic. I think you'd be in the minority if you'd rather see a pair of pilots panicking about an emergency in the cockpit, rather than two calm, collected professionals simply putting their extensive training into action to deal with the situation.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 170):
after the event

You can feel how you like after the 'event', as long as you're carrying out the procedures you were trained to do during the 'event'. I'm not saying they would've gone home today thinking it was just another day in the office, but they almost certainly won't feel they did anything they weren't extensively trained and prepared for.

Incidentally, the chairman of BALPA seems to share my views:

Quote:
Captain Mark Searle, chairman of the British Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa), said: "This was a professional job done by professional people.

"As pilots we spend our whole career training to manage incidents such as this in order to avoid an incident becoming a disaster."


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6109 posts, RR: 9
Reply 178, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 26692 times:

Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 146):
The article on Sky News clearly identifies it as an Airbus, and the first comment I read is a snide remark about the 737. That's either a reading comprehension problem, or it carries the A vs B debate to a new level of silliness.

This is the internet. That article has probably been edited ten times before you read it, but after the comment was made.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 179,