Jet engine explodes on runway, Airbus A330

[aguadalte]

Video here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PS1YAX70edc#at=56)

[Pelican]

Textbook stuff. Well done!

Great video!

[lomapaseo]

video dubbed

great stuff for spotters not much else

[poke53281]

Sounds like same pilot that the same videogropher filmed a few years ago on the Thomson 757 bird strike t/o -

[dash6]

Standard Pilot emergency voice.We are all trained in its use.No relationship!......

[Hotel Tango]

Quite so LOMAPASEO, but at least it's a tad more interesting than some of the rubbish that gets posted here.

[reverserunlocked]

My first thought was also how much it sounded like the same skipper from the TCX 757 strike a while ago. Either way, job well done.

Another perspective (with daft spotter commentary) here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRL8MPnXmFw&sns=em

[206Fan]

Sounds like same pilot that the same videogropher filmed a few years ago on the Thomson 757 bird strike t/o - I thought the exact same. Speaking of which, It will be covered in next weeks episode of "Terror in the Skies"!

Terror in the Skies - Channel 4 (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/terror-in-the-skies)

[Hotel Tango]

Many pilots and controllers sound the same. It's called the r/t voice.

[DX Wombat]

The avian judging panel perched on the fence made me smile. Obviously preparing to pass on hints to this year's youngsters. ;)

[cyflyer]

Yes, very good video. The videographer is obviously good and uses a tripod.

a tad more interesting than some of the rubbish that gets posted here
hehe, I think we know who we are talking about.

[Kulverstukas]

PS1YAX70edc
© Simon Lowe
Manchester Airport UK. Monday 24 June 2013. Destination was to be Dominican Republic
Thomas Cook A330 G-OMYT

[fizz57]

Where's the explosion?

[Sixfoot Toan]

At about 16/17 seconds, very clear.

[foxmoth]

Speaking of which, It will be covered in next weeks episode of "Terror in the Skies"!

Yes, but there it will not be "look at how well and safely an engine problem is normally dealt with", but "LOOK HOW DANGEROUS THIS IS - ALMOST 320 PASSENGERS NEARLY LOST THEIR LIVES", has to be the most sensationalist drivel ever done on aviation!

Some stupid comments on the utube site, especially about Boeing Vs Airbus and clearing the runway.

[david1300]

At about 16/17 seconds, very clear.
Hardly an explosion. Engine failure, yes. Might, just might scrape into 2nd definition:
Explosion: Noun

A violent and destructive shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.
A violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave.

[Bearcat]

Kestrel are not having the best of luck with their 330s. Heard them divert last year due engine snag at 30w . That's a fairly serious rto.

[WhyByFlier]

A couple of things:

1. You're a pedant.
2. It was an explosion by the first definition - it says 'as is'. The casing contained the explosion.

[Basil]

Appears to be a surge.
Excellent video of the phenomenon.

[Lurking_SLF]

Nice to hear that by the time the sound of the explosion/surge reaches the camera the Fire Trucks are on the way.

Well done to all...

[NigelOnDraft]

It was an explosion by the first definition - it says 'as is'. The casing contained the explosion. We shall see ;) It is incredible the noise and visual effects a mere "surge" can have, and cause little/no damage.

Was the runway closed for sometime afterwards requiring debris to be removed? If not, then to me anyway it was not an "explosion" ;) If we want non specialist terms, then "backfire" might be more appropriate - we shall see (or maybe not - unlikely any AAIB follow up).

[Dash8driver1312]

More like a cough than a Backfire, that's a Russian military supersonic twin anyway ;-)

[kaikohe76]

Looked as though the incident was nicely handled, little deviation from the centre line & the rudder input was there immediately. Aircraft came safely to a stop & EGCC emergency vehicles right there, good helpful ATC. You would rather not go through this normally I suppose, but if you had to, this is the way to do it.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Spotters and the Press call it an explosion. I've also seen it sensationally described as an explosion and uncontained engine failure. :rolleyes:

Professionals assess it to be a surge, possibly caused by birdstrike, and a correctly executed RTO. All told, text book. :ok:

Shall we leave it at that and leave each faction to believe what they want to believe.

Such a shame PPRuNe has to cope with such petty squabbling. :mad:

[Checkboard]

Such a shame a thread on a professional site headlines a term enjoyed by spotters and the press!

[Heathrow Harry]

Tristars used to do it all the time...................

[Agaricus bisporus]

Such a shame a site for "Professionals" is marred by hysterical and inaccurate meeja descriptions like "explosion" and "uncontained" engine failure.

If people don't understand very basic technical terminology they're better off just not using them.

[F14]

Very nice job by the pilots. Really calm on the radio after stopped. But this aircraft has had a lot of problems with the number 2 engine:- :eek:

The Aviation Herald (http://www.avherald.com/h?search_term=g-omyt&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0)

[Thunderbirdsix]

Heres a longer version of the video, shows the emergency services and the aircraft moving off the runway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjDR916_lKc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[david1300]

It's for the very reason that people mirepresent airline incidents and use the wrong terminology that we should be vigilant. A compressor stall or surge is fairly insignificant in modern flying and should be reported and treated as such on aviation forums. There are enough scare-mongers out there without us adding to the sensationalism. I suggest that if someone doesn't know the difference between a surge and an explosion they should stick to the thread in the spotters balcony

Spotters and the Press call it an explosion. I've also seen it sensationally described as an explosion and uncontained engine failure. :rolleyes:

Professionals assess it to be a surge, possibly caused by birdstrike, and a correctly executed RTO. All told, text book. :ok:
...

The point made very succintly by Checkboard:
Such a shame a thread on a professional site headlines a term enjoyed by spotters and the press!

[Mikehotel152]

Doesn't sound like the same pilot to me. Most English pilots sound very similar on ATC.

Nicely handled RTO. I'd guess 90-100 kts.

[Cacophonix]

This containment test demonstrates what catastrophic destruction of a modern jet engine really looks like...

Jet Engine Explosion - YouTube

Such a failure is a completely different phenomenon to compressor surge as has already been noted by more sage minds than mine.

[DX Wombat]

The original, much better, more measured thread which was started on here is now located here. (http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/517782-nice-reject-take-off-manchester.html#post7909034)

[763 jock]

The 757 at MAN was Thomson. This is Thomas Cook. Different airlines that do not share their pilots!

[Lonewolf_50]

Professionals assess it to be a surge, possibly caused by birdstrike, and a correctly executed RTO. All told, text book
:ok:

Caco, thanks for that video of an actual engine explosion. Instructive.

[overthewing]

But this aircraft has had a lot of problems with the number 2 engine:-

The Aviation Herald

Four incidents in nine months involving the same engine seems a lot to me. Is it likely to be the same engine in each incident, ie has the engine been changed or simply 'fixed'?

[cldrvr]

has the engine been changed or simply 'fixed'


You would be surprised what you can do with a bit of gaffer tape and a decent sized hammer.

[ShotOne]

What an immaculately executed rejected takeoff, cool and professional RT very well handled by all. I'll book my family with Thomas Cook!

[Locarno]

Anyone heard any rumours at what speed the RTO was initiated?

[PAXboy]

Text book stuff.

I was amused by the video title 'jet engine explodes on runway' - which of course it did not. I guess even the most pro of videographers want to attract more views of the items they post.

So, was it brake cooling and then depart?

[barit1]

I've been involved in ground testing of medium-to-large turbine engines for a few decades and have experienced many compressor stalls (or surges, the terms are essentially interchangeable). And as often as I've heard/felt them, I have no problem with a untrained person calling it an "explosion" - because that is what it seems like. Combusting fuel/air mix at 20x atmospheric pressure deciding to exit through the front end of the engine - it's a LOUD bang! :eek:

I'm not sure what the modern protocol is re sweeping the runway for debris after an RTO. If there's no evidence of missing engine hardware, the sweep may not be necessary.

I know, I know, it's more akin to a firearm discharging, which isn't really an explosion, but rather very rapid combustion.

[lomapaseo]

I know, I know, it's more akin to a firearm discharging, which isn't really an explosion, but rather very rapid combustion

Just as a fire is rapid oxidation.

I just wish these news guys would start using these type scientific terms :)

[Guest 112233]

Deflagration : Is the proper term - a very rapid burning without a supersonic shock wave through the combustion material.

(Edit: Detonation is where there's a supersonic shock wave.)

Perhaps an engine surge could possibly be classed as an explosion of sorts under some circumstances ?

[overthewing]

You would be surprised what you can do with a bit of gaffer tape and a decent sized hammer.

Indeed. I remember watching from the gate at Vancouver as a man hammered at an engine on the Virgin 747 I was about to board. In the end the flight was postponed, pending an engine replacement, but we all clambered aboard the same plane at dawn... Something wrong with the reverser, I was told. The hammer 'fix' had wedged something so the reverser wouldn't deploy. The cabin crew seemed a bit tense.

[laz219]

I saw this on news.com.au before checking the forums. I read the entire article first, then watched the video.
After reading the sensationalist article- I was not surprised to see the video was completely undramatic.

[ShotOne]

The original thread on this has presumably been (rightly) deleted because of some of the idiotic postings it attracted. Which is a pity since it demonstrated a text-book reject and the very best in professional airmanship from all concerned..followed by the very worst from pprune posters. Can we perhaps try again without the silliness?

[DX Wombat]

I'm assuming you don't have any issues with this thread ShotOne? Do let us know.

[DX Wombat]

PAXboy, this Nice Reject Take-Off at Manchester is the original title of the original thread (which ShotOne seems to think has been deleted). :rolleyes: That whole thread is still here but has had the second one merged with it.

[HappyPass]

Innocent question: why did they deploy reverser on both engines? SOP?

[TURIN]

Why not? Both engines were still running. If it was a surge, which seems likely, then the engine can continue to run especially if thrust is reduced to idle. Which is necessary before reversers are deployed.

[HappyPass]

Understand.
Won't the new increase in power when reversers are engaged further damage an engine in case something broke inside it?
Is that choice made because the possibility of an uncontained engine failure is much more remote, while the sooner you stop the airplane the better so both reversers are used even though that might render the engine unusable?
Or is it (also) because the procedure is simpler and less error-prone (TAM 3054)?

[Basil]

A surge happens so quickly and normal flow may be re-established before flt crew have time to look at the EGT to see which engine it was.
I appreciate that, in the case of a twin then the nose will yaw towards the surging engine. In the case of a 4 eng then you may not know which of two went.
It's better to pull reverse on the lot and worry about the problem when the aircraft has stopped.
I'd a surge in a B747 and a taxiing crew identified the engine for us - but they were wrong. It all happens too fast to start identifying which engine has spat its dummy.

[lomapaseo]

If the pilot senses a thrust loss via directional change involving rudder correction then the surge is not immediately recoverable by itself.

As for both reversers being activated I see no problem at all in that. After all the pilot is definitely on his game with the rudder pedals as evidenced by his control at high speed.

I might have missed this somewhere but any idea of the speed condition when the surge (sic) occurred?

[noughtsnones]

The selection of reverse (especially if only to reverse idle) is desirable for symmetry of blocker door drag.
The manoevres carried out in this case are nice and quick after the surge, so IMHO the engines don't stabilise at low (or flight) idle prior to reverse and so there is unlikely to be significant change in engine power. The effect of engine usage and risk of inducing physical damage is moot.
The ECAM will identify the faulty engine, if the FADEC had applied its detection, reporting and recovery processes.
The aircraft tyre smoke indicates quite heavy wheel breaking, whilst reversers are deployed for only a few seconds. This is suggestive of low reverse power, possibly not above reverse idle on both; this itself could be supporting of the speculative view that the crew were not even trying to be certain of the faulty and normal engines up to and during the reverse selected period.
These comments and speculations are my own view; I do not wish to imply anything other than admiration for the handling of the event and adherence to SOP.
(Basil and lomapaseo, I started writing this offline, I wouldn't disagree ... as its not R&N I decided to paste anyway)

[bucket_and_spade]

There is one RTO drill because any RTO is a very dynamic event - there will often not be time to assess what the problem is and adjust the RTO drill. The scope for error would be huge hence a SINGLE RTO drill - one that is rehearsed before entering the runway with a touch drill. On a Boeing it's closing the thrust levers, disengaging the autothrottle, monitoring the autobrakes or applying manual braking, deploying full speedbrake and then full reverse. This all happens in a matter of seconds. The non-handling pilot is monitoring all of the above actions, calls out any omissions, advises the handling pilot of the speed during deceleration and advises ATC of the rejected takeoff. After the aircraft halts, again, each crew member has their area of responsibility to complete. There will be a deep breath, an assessment of the problem and then the appropriate actions.

At high speed, the number one priority is to bring the aircraft safely to a halt on the tarmac/stopway with each pilot completing specific tasks as the aircraft is stopped. There is no time to hear a bang, feel a yaw, look at the instruments, have a chat then initiate the stopping actions, modifying them based on the malfunction.

The dynamic and sometimes hazardous nature of a high-speed RTO is also the reason that only a small list of issues on the takeoff roll, in the high-speed regime (above 80-100 knots) warrant stopping the aircraft as opposed to taking the problem in to the air.

This RTO was initiated at just over 100 knots and so is in the high-speed/energy regime.

[Trumps]

Just had confirmation from my friends in the Thomas Cook hangar (I used to contract there) that it wasn't a bird strike, and just a "tired old engine"

[lomapaseo]

Just had confirmation from my friends in the Thomas Cook hangar (I used to contract there) that it wasn't a bird strike, and just a "tired old engine"

Did it stay on the aircraft for the next flight?

[Trumps]

Knowing Thomas Cook, I wouldn't be surprised if it did....


But alas, no, it was changed today*


* to an older engine. ;)

[FlightPathOBN]

Interesting video making the rounds..

Manchester Airport UK. Monday 24 June 2013. Destination was to be Dominican Republic Thomas Cook A330

Jet engine explodes on runway, Airbus A330. - YouTube

[BOAC]

Where have you been?

[FlightPathOBN]

awwww..did you miss me? :}

[Capt Fathom]

No we didn't!

Thread running here (http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/517787-jet-engine-explodes-runway-airbus-a330.html) for the past couple of days!

[TURIN]

and here. (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/493949-manchester-9-a-42.html)

:*

[FlightPathOBN]

You guys need to learn to title things correctly...

rejected takeoff...those happen everyday..ie BORING

who reads that crap????

Be specific..
engine explodes
Airbus
Manchester....

See how this all works...

admit it...you really did miss me...

edit: (at least I provided a video...)

[lomapaseo]

to an older engine. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Older is better?, well seasoned, none of this infant mortality crap :rolleyes:

[mickjoebill]

If the exhaust and braking smoke is an indiction the wind direction was down the runaway and left to right at a few knots.


The pilot said there was no indication of fire, under what circumstances should the aircraft be orientated so that the potential fire is being blown away from the fuselage?

In this case had there been a fire the wind would be blowing it against the fuselage and toward both rear escape chutes.

[DaveReidUK]

The pilot said there was no indication of fire, under what circumstances should the aircraft be orientated so that the potential fire is being blown away from the fuselage?I think you have answered your own question.

If there is a fire warning then, although identifying the engine concerned may be irrelevant for the purpose of the RTO (see earlier posts), once the aircraft has slowed it should be positioned with the suspect engine downwind.

"Procedures should be developed to enable the crew to position an aircraft, when a ground fire emergency exists, with the fire downwind of the fuselage" [my emphasis] - AAIB Safety Recommendation made as part of the Manchester/Airtours accident report.

In this case, as you rightly say, there was no fire indication and so the question didn't arise.

[mickjoebill]

f there is a fire warning

Is there a downside to positioning the aircraft for a fire before confirmation?

In this case whilst the aircraft still has some momentum steering it into wind before the fire service arrives?

No harm? fire vehicles can go on the grass if need be?

[Capt Fathom]

fire vehicles can go on the grass if need be?

Considering the weight of a fire truck, probably not. And definitely not if its wet.

The ability to position a larger aircraft within the confines of the runway may be difficult, and may result in the fire services not able to gain close access to the fire.

[763 jock]

"AAIB Safety Recommendation made as part of the Manchester/Airtours accident report."

The aircraft involved did not belong to Airtours. It happened years before Airtours even owned an airline. The incident you are referring to happened to British Airtours, the charter airline owned by British Airways.

[TURIN]

763Jock
Go to the top of the class-pedant of the week!

[DX Wombat]

FPOBN:You guys need to learn to title things correctly...
I refer you to post 49. You need to do a little reading in before posting it prevents people applying this old adage to you "It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and dispel all doubt". :rolleyes: :ugh: Having said that there is at least one other poster who didn't read in and probably embarrassed him/herself.

[DaveReidUK]

The aircraft involved did not belong to Airtours. It happened years before Airtours even owned an airline. The incident you are referring to happened to British Airtours, the charter airline owned by British Airways.Humble apologies, I'd assumed wrongly that it would be obvious to anyone reading my post that the only "Airtours" around in 1985 was BA's charter subsidiary. :ugh:

[mickjoebill]

fire vehicles can go on the grass if need be?

Quote:

Considering the weight of a fire truck, probably not. And definitely not if its wet.


Sales blurb from the makers of the 45ft long Striker 4500
http://www.iafpa.org.uk/images/oshkosh.jpg
"The Off-Road High Mobility design is all-wheel independent and can handle just about anything nature can dish out. The apparatus are required by the FAA to manoeuvre a 30 degree approach angle, 30 degree departure angle and a 30 degree side angle. The transmission can also manage some very difficult conditions if the weather becomes uncooperative. Using an interlock system, the truck has the ability to ‘walk’ its way out of mud that is virtually up to the frame."


They do go off road. Look at the tracks made in the soft ground.

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/480/59846036-the-air.jpg

ARFF Striker in the mud - YouTube
http://media.tcpalm.com/media/img/photos/2009/11/06/plane_crash_t607.jpg

http://kwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/20403051_BG3.jpg

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/w2hKPxrF.c4knSHOZpKTsQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTUzMTtweW9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/91cca9d6c7086c14350f6a7067008a77.jpg

http://www.shapirophotography.net/fire%20trucks/ARFF/MIA%20flowing.jpg

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Amazing - Engine Failure Footage! Thomas Cook A330 200 at Manchester Airport 24th June 2013 - YouTube

Anybody have some info on this one?

24/06/2013 is the date the video was uploaded, not necessarily when the incident occurred.

[DaveReidUK]

Anybody have some info on this one?Manchester aborted takeoff - Google Search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Manchester+aborted+takeoff)

[spannersatcx]

Anybody have some info on this one?

24/06/2013 is the date the video was uploaded, not necessarily when the incident occurred.

some stuff here (http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/517787-jet-engine-explodes-runway-airbus-a330.html):eek:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Text book stuff.

Which text book is that then?

[mickjoebill]

Quote:
fire vehicles can go on the grass if need be?

Considering the weight of a fire truck, probably not. And definitely not if its wet.
The ability to position a larger aircraft within the confines of the runway may be difficult, and may result in the fire services not able to gain close access to the fire.

Aerial images of the San Francisco accident shows eight fire trucks on the grass.

[Burnie5204]

They absolutely go on the grass regardless of whether it's wet or not - there's a reason why they are 4x4/6x6/8x8 wheel drive with big 'tractor' type treaded tyres. In an emergency it doesn't matter whether they plough tracks or dig up the ground as long as they get there fast.