PPRuNe Forums - BA009 Jakarta incident 24 June 1982

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Accidents and Close Calls (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls-139/)

- - BA009 Jakarta incident 24 June 1982 (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/649177-ba009-jakarta-incident-24-june-1982-a.html)

BA009 Jakarta incident 24 June 1982

Many of us will recall the occasion when the BA 747-200 operating KUL PER lost all four engines when flying through high level contamination from the eruption of Mt Gulunggung not far to the East of Jakarta. Have just watched what to self is this recent quite well informed recent clip on Youtube. As with all articles I have read previously on this incident, I have seen no mention of 'Notams', and why no consideration as to changing the routing was given on this occasion. I used to be familiar with operating on this and other routes in the area over many years, and 'Notams' issued along with Met briefings tended to headline current volcanic action since Indonesia is riddled with them. Is it possible that this high level micro silicon infused dust cloud was not expected? Maybe someone here knows what I'm missing....

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONE GREEN AND HOPING (Post 11306955)

Mount Galunggung did not have a NOTAM or IVOL issued as far as I am aware, that became a matter of some urgency thereafter. A month later, a Singapore Airlines B747 lost 3 out of 4 engines from further eruption of the same stratovolcano.

There was no official report on this event issued by the AAIB, and the KNKT/NTSC doesn't show a report on the incident. KLM 867, a B744 had all 4 shut down over Alaska in 1989, and did an emergency recovery to PANC.

I don’t think that we appreciated the risk of the dust building up on the stators and rotors and effecting engine performance let alone sand blasting the airframe. I was on the DC10 when the KLM incident happened and operating through ANC often. Our lot decided it was too dangerous but the crews stuck there when we changed the routing to Tokyo via Bombay were flown to the lower 48 on the local operator who obviously thought it was a risk worth taking.

An interesting ash cloud encounter.

Quote:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) DC-8 airborne sciences research airplane inadvertently flew through a diffuse volcanic ash cloud of the Mt. Hekla volcano in February 2000 during a flight from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California) to Kiruna, Sweden. Although the ash plume was not visible to the flight crew, sensitive research experiments and instruments detected it. In-flight performance checks and postflight visual inspections revealed no damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; subsequent detailed examination of the engines revealed clogged turbine cooling air passages. The engines were removed and overhauled. This paper presents volcanic ash plume analysis, trajectory from satellites, analysis of ash particles collected in cabin air heat exchanger filters and removed from the engines, and data from onboard instruments and engine conditions

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/...0030068344.pdf

Oh well, still don't really understand why people don't simply keep well clear of erupting volcanos. Even in piston and Britannia days, info was well promulgated by both AIS and Met offices. By the time I retired, we were getting Sat photos as well. Must have been around 1997, I sat next to Eric Moody in class during one of our BA bi-annual three day tech, briefings and two day simulator sessions. He was well regarded in his expertise out side flying.... maybe law? A big company, and so this was the first time I had met him. We both had been skippers on 744s for at least seven or eight years by then, and I thought it impolite to badger him for first hand recollections. Had been back on 1-11s at Hurn until they were grounded in 2002. Then spent a few months back on 742s after a pre-scrap five were purchased from BA. One of the them was the famous 747 'Glider'.... seemed to run ok..

I imagine being nearly 100 miles away was considered far enough back then. Now we have a clearer understanding nearly 100 miles away but down wind might be considered more of a hazard than closer but upwind.