1.
Point is?A stressed out FA losing it in the rear of the plane because one engine is developing a problem?
I believe that this is a reference to a different aircraft "that made an unscheduled stop in South Carolina in an unrelated incident. "
2. I think that this is one of those incidents where speculation isn’t going to serve us very well (certainly not the fear-mongering speculation in the press, but that’s not my point). I think we can all conceive of a situation where NOBODY (pilots, ATC, airport authority) has good reason to believe that the runway may be contaminated with engine parts when something like this happens. To quote from the article, "there were indications of a No. 1 engine malfunction during its takeoff role on the tarmac. Once that happened, the pilot notified the tower of the malfunction and taxied back to the gate." This is certainly not the first time that an aircraft has rejected a takeoff for an engine problem. If neither the driver nor ATC have reason to believe that the aircraft has shed parts, then nobody is going to call for a FOD check. I’ve seen a lot of RTOs in my day, and leaving hardware on the runway has been the exception in these events rather than the rule.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the only way to avoid this problem is to do a runway check every time an aircraft has a mechanical problem on the runway, and I don’t know that that’s a practical approach (assuming there’s not a reg in place requiring it in Canada). What’s more, I’d be curious to learn, in comparison, how many aircraft shed parts without ANY indication (not knowing something dropped-off until hours or days later)?
I’m just making a plea for patience. Although the aircrew appears blameless, I’m not certain the time is ripe to pin it on ATC or the airport authority either.
Dave