Another fine piece of journalism (CX IFES)

[Beanbag]

On the London Evening Standard website today:
-----------------------------------------------
Passengers today told how they feared they were going to die when an engine on their aircraft burst into a huge ball of flames.

The Cathay Pacific flight from Heathrow to Hong Kong turned round four hours into the flight and landed back in London today.

Passenger Dr Robin Singh, who was overlooking the wing, said: "It was a 20ft ball of flame. The wing caught fire and then it was coming towards the window. People-started screaming. I thought 'this is it' as it was reaching the window - I thought it was going to engulf the plane."

By the time flight CX250, with 322 passengers on board, touched down, the flames had subsided. Dr Singh, of the University of Middlesex Hospital in Isleworth, said: "When the fire started, we were asking the cabin crew what was happening, and they said they didn't know."

Passengers were finally told the plane was being re-routed, but to their amazement realised it would not be landing at the nearest airport. Dr Singh said: "We were flying over Russia, but they said we were going back to London, four hours away. When I asked why, they said it was because the service centre was there." A spokesman for Cathay Pacific confirmed one of the engines had been in trouble.

He said: "The reason the pilot came back to London was because there were three working engines and at no time was the safety of the passengers or staff in danger."

Passengers were put up in a hotel, where they were today awaiting replacement flights.

------------------------------------
I presume the real story is a bit less sensational - anyone in a position to provide it?

[panda-k-bear]

I think it's disgusting that they sent Dr. Singh out onto the wing with a tape measure to make sure they knew how big that "ball of flame" actually was!

[Danny]

First reported here on PPRuNe by stickyb on the EAAC's 747 operation with 3 engines (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151273&perpage=20&pagenumber=4) thread.Ironic isn't it. I just caught up with reading some threads, this one included, before setting out to go LHR HKG on CX250 last night (as slf)
Snoozing away NE of Moscow some 3 hours into the flight when the captain apologises for the flames that some people have seen, no2 is shut down, and we're turing back to LHR. 4hours later, coming back lower and slower, and we land at 2am!
Must say though, just in case any journos are reading, that the whole thing seemed extremely professionally handled, with absolutely no panic amongst the pax. Just some moans about being late for meetings!

Shows the journalists up for what they are. :rolleyes:

[SLFguy]

Of course you two would have casually ordered another martini....

[strake]

SLFguy...of course they would..

I have read a number of these "yawn-yawn" comments on PPrune over the years and wondered how many people have actually been in the BACK of an a/c when something goes wrong.

Over twenty years I have had one (partial) engine failure in my little spam-can. I have also experienced a complete "let-go" (bangs,flames,shaking etc for the non-technical.) in an MD Something-or-other coming out of Larnaca a few years back. Both, obviously, landed safely.

My little engine failure hardly raised an eyebrow on my cool, collected brow. However, I can assure you that for 30mins or so there were no Atheists flying in the back of that a/c in Larnaca...cabin crew included....!

[Load Toad]

To an 'SLF' myself included (and I fly - oh......50 odd times a year) anything 'unusal' makes us sit up and take note.

Now if something happened to me on a flight with all my experience of being an SLF I'd probably take the proffessionalism of the crew as an indication we were OK.

Now imagine you've been on a plane at most a couple of times.

If it does something 'weird' nevermind an engine has to be shut down you frankly feel scared to death. You haven't a clue what planes can and can't do. You don't know what crew can & can't cope with and you don't know if that 'noise' was mild turbulence or a wing falling off.

Well those people...that's most of your SLF and if all is well they'll just moan they can't get an extra glass of wine. But if something strange happens they are the people that the journos get to talk to.

And if you are an SLF and something untoward seems to happening to the flight - trust me - silly or not the SLF get scared damn quick.

When I first started flying (as an SLF) I had two experiences I recall:-

On one we hit some turbulence. No doubt to the crew it was very normal. But to me and my friends it was an unknown, scary, exciting and after a while it was a real worry. No one said anything - it was probably a non event but to us it was not a nice place to be.

On a second we were on Swiss Air. We hit some turbulence. We were going all over the shop. The pilot came on the PA, explained what turbulence was, why it was happening and what he would do to try to improve the ride.

We sat back, laughed and considered ordering more whiskey.

SLF are stupid. But we are your customers. Just tell us what is going on and honestly; we will try to understand.

[Globaliser]

[b]Load Toad; {/b]Now imagine you've been on a plane at most a couple of times.

If it does something 'weird' nevermind an engine has to be shut down you frankly feel scared to death. You haven't a clue what planes can and can't do. You don't know what crew can & can't cope with and you don't know if that 'noise' was mild turbulence or a wing falling off.

Well those people...that's most of your SLF and if all is well they'll just moan they can't get an extra glass of wine. But if something strange happens they are the people that the journos get to talk to.

And if you are an SLF and something untoward seems to happening to the flight - trust me - silly or not the SLF get scared damn quick.I don't blame the SLF who get scared in this situation. The problem is that journos ought to know better than to report this sort of knee-jerk stuff from the SLF who don't know what is going on. Fair, accurate, honest and responsible journalism demands no less.

The fact that these journos neverthless (a) lap it up and then (b) regurgitate it just goes to demonstrate how few of those adjectives are being honoured by those sections of the media.

And that, I think, is the gravamen of the repeated complaint here on PPRuNe - which I, as another non-pilot non-aviation industry SLF, share 100%.

[LatviaCalling]

Speaking about journos, editors and newspaper style, take a look below and see what a non-tabloid respectable newspaper like the Los Angeles Times did with a nearly identical story just a few days ago.

Pitty Cathay Pacific, though. Second engine loss in a week.

---

November 11, 2004

Jet Returns to LAX After Engine Fails
Half an hour after takeoff, the plane lands safely. Those aboard are rerouted.



By Wendy Thermos, Times Staff Writer

More than 300 stranded passengers were being rerouted Wednesday while officials investigated why an engine on a Hong Kong-bound jumbo jet failed during takeoff the night before at Los Angeles International Airport, forcing an emergency landing.

Several people on the ground saw sparks and flames shooting from one of the four engines of the Cathay Pacific Boeing B-747-400 as it departed at 10:52 p.m. Tuesday. The plane landed safely back at LAX half an hour later.

Preliminary evidence suggested a blade failure in the engine, Cathay spokeswoman Frances Horner said Wednesday. "With sparks coming out, it looks pretty spectacular at night," she said.

The flight was canceled and passengers were sent to local hotels. About 100 were placed on other flights Wednesday morning, with the rest scheduled to leave last night and today, Horner said.

Cathay Pacific Airways officials are working with Rolls-Royce, the engine manufacturer, to determine why the engine failed. The Federal Aviation Administration was immediately alerted.

The pilot learned of the problem from an instrument indicator, shut down the engine, informed passengers of the situation and told them of the plan to return to the airport, Horner said. The planes are designed to fly on three engines if necessary.

Before approaching, the pilot dumped fuel over the ocean so the plane would be light enough to meet weight requirements for landing.

[Mr Chips]

Obviously well researched story... Dr Singh, of the University of Middlesex Hospital in Isleworth, That will be the West Middlesex University Hospital then.. if they can't even get the details from a "witness" right.....

[frangatang]

I suspect most cabin crew wouldnt notice anything on takeoff
cos they are too bloody busy yapping away to each other at the doors!

[SLFguy]

That will be the West Middlesex University Hospital then.. if they can't even get the details from a "witness" right.....


Thank you class and next week we'll be looking at punctuation.

[gas path]

Hhmmm! NE of Moscow 3 hrs into the flight, that must have been a step climb then. Throttle up.. sudden rise in N3 vibs retard t/l to idle...throttle up again and Bang!! one HP turbine blade departs company.:ooh:
Big deal:hmm:
I wonder what standard of HPT blade C/X use?

[Pat Malone]

You have to laugh.
Speaking as a journalist of 30 years standing, and a former Deputy News Editor of the above-mentioned London Evening Standard, I have to say the situation is even worse than you think.
Journalists know nothing of aviation except what they read in the papers. It wasn't until I learned to fly 20 years ago that I began to realise that virtually everything I had read (and written) about aviation was wrong. It just doesn't happen like that.
We're not especially thick or venal - just ignorant of the subject. If a journalist wants to know about something, he or she will call up the cuttings library, where every newspaper article ever published on that subject has been cut and stored. Thus are misapprehensions and myths perpetuated.
But the real problem is that journalists know nothing about ANY vaguely technical subject. Medicine. Science. Engineering. Social work. Pick your own topic. Not even the so-called 'specialists' have any real in-depth grasp of their subject. (When I did a quick survey in the late 1980s, not a single aviation correspondent in Fleet Street could fly a plane).
And then we come to topics like politics, international relations, and sport, which are not only poorly understood by journalists but are deliberately coloured and slanted by the agendas and the prejudices of the writers.
And like it or not, that's where most of us end up getting our information. While we can see that the media gives an impossibly distorted view of aviation, we have a charitable disposition to believe what we read on other subjects.
Still, it paid for my helicopter. Caveat emptor.

[hart744]

what is wrong with CX maintenance? 2 IFES in 8 days

[Sky Wave]

"what is wrong with CX maintenance? 2 IFES in 8 days"

Bad Luck, Sods Law.

How do you know that it was a maintenance related problem? Could have been faulty manufacturing.

When was their last IFES prior to 8 days a go? How does that compare with other operators based on the amount of aircraft in the fleet?

[Globaliser]

Pat Malone: Speaking as a journalist of 30 years standing, and a former Deputy News Editor of the above-mentioned London Evening Standard, I have to say the situation is even worse than you think.
Journalists know nothing of aviation except what they read in the papers. What, you mean even journalists fall into the old trap of believing what they read in the papers?

:D

Couldn't resist, sorry!

[hobie]

I've always suspected that the reason why Journalists get things wrong so often is that most guys in the Aviation world refuse to speak to them, let alone tell them anything that might turn out to be controversial ......

I read a Times report from a link provided on the Halifax incident thread ....... worth reading for the questions it raises in a number of areas, and as an example of Aviation Journalism that I find demonstrates a depth of understanding of the subject ....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1365857,00.html

[stickyb]

Having now had a chance to but the Evening Standard and read the article in full myself, I have to wonder if I was on the same flight as Dr Singh.
I can't comment on the accuracy of the 20ft ball of flame, as I did not see it, but certainly there was no panic or screaming, and I did not feel in peril from flames advancing down the wing!

The one thing I did notice was the slow measured tone of the captain during the PA in which he explained the problem. His voice didn't seemed to have changed in tone from the announcement he made when we were holding at LHR and he was explaining we were about 6 in the hold. Nice and calm and factual, very reassuring.

Whilst I cannot comment on the causes, the event in the air seemed like it was handled with nothing but professionalism.

[N1 Vibes]

one HP turbine blade departs company.

I wonder what standard of HPT blade C/X use?

Gas Path

in response to your question/comment, a quick bit of research has answered your question.

The CX fleet, and almost all of the worlds RB211 powered 744 a/c now have the 524HT engine installed. The 'T' stands for the Trent core, which RR shoe-horned into the existing engine about 4 years ago, to improve failing EGT performance and HPT blade failures of the non-T engine. This HP module comprising the HPC, Combustion section and HPT, came virtually unmodified from the Trent 700/800 programme. Which has had only 3 design changes in the HPT blade area, as the item is so damn good. When compared to the original 524H item, that couldn't last beyond 2,500 cycles witout failing spectacularly, as you may be remembering from past times.

1 modification was to improve efficiency of the blade, 1 to ease blade production process and 1 for shank sulphidation, that as yet hasn't caused a major failure on the 744 fleet. Sulphidation, for the uninitiated, is caused by the sulphur in Kerosene, which at a very narrow temperature range can cause corossion pitting. Everybody suffers it, P+W, GE, Allied Signal etc. Platinising is an effetcive protection, that is plating with platinum, in the affected area.

Hoping this answers your question.

Brgd's

Roller Fan :ok:
PS Is there any truth to the rumour that the enigne actually continued to run after the event? Which could also rule out a turbine failure.

[lomapaseo]

PS Is there any truth to the rumour that the enigne actually continued to run after the event? Which could also rule out a turbine failure

It's not difficult to keep an engine running after only one or two turbine blades go missing. Just a recoverable surge and it finds a new operating line. Now on the other hand if you clobber all the blades bad enough, than that ends it.

[gas path]

Usually not a problem keeping it running if it becomes stable enough, just don't touch the thrust lever.:hmm:
Although in this case I believe the EGT decided to approach the 1K deg mark.
Are all the CX engines to 'T' standard? We certainly have a lot of the original cored motors with the 2c HPT blade and they are fine, tough as old boots, and take all sorts of damage, the only weakness (if you could call it that) being the shroud interlocks. The 211 always did have a reasonable EGT margin that didn't deteriorate much over it's service life.
From what I remember the limit of 2500 cyc stemmed from the original 2b blade.

[GotTheTshirt]

Lompasa,
When an HPT blade gets fed up and decides to leave it has 2 ways out.
One is to get to hell out of Dodge and go though the case ( "an uncontained failure")
The other is to carefully wend its way rearward keeping out of the way of several dozen angry blades all snapping at its bum.

Which of these is no problem to carry on with ?

:D

[lomapaseo]

T-shirt

Yup, except in some cases it finds a nice nitch and decides to bundle up for the night and not go out in the cold

:=

[N1 Vibes]

The 524G/H enignes must have improved dramtically since I was testing overhauled units, and they were only giving 10 degrees of margin off the cell. This was never fully understood by RR, a lot of work went ino the rework techniques of the HPC and HPT, though it appears the engine didn't like so much repair work. The -T core gave an instant guaranteed 55 degree boost to your EGT margin off the cell and excellent margin retention. But, the cost of $1.8 million per donk led to a few airlines having a sharp intake of breath. A quick glance in their wallets meant deciding not to go the whole way for the -T. Horses for courses as they would say in Epsom.

Brgd's:8

[Vox Populi]

This thread isn't so much the usual journo bashing as pax bashing. The reporter reported the comments made.

If a passenger sees flames coming from an engine in flight they have every right to be terrified. Can you blame them for thinking their life is about to end, and getting a little excited in their retelling of the story?

To suggest they should have sat back and thought calmy to themselves "...how interesting an entirely normal in flight incident being dealt with professionaly..." is frankly laughable.

As for the American newspaper article - American organisations usually employ articulate individuals who speak openly to the press and help control the flow of information - in this case I suspect the views of a traumatised pax was about the extent of hard information the reporter got.

vp

[spannersatcx]

The reporter reported the comments made.

or did they!

[cargo boy]

Read an article in the Saturday edition of the Daily Express about the incident which mentioned the following words at least once if not more: Death plunge, terror flight, exploding fireball, terrified passengers, etc., etc.

You only have to read the post in this thread by Pat Malone and you will immediately understand the mentality and understanding of the author of the piece. It sells newspapers and unless you can influence the editors of these rags to do something about it then you might as well poke yourself in the arm with a sharp stick for all the good it will do! :rolleyes:

Only read the Express because I found it behind my seat on a long flight :\

[Peking Peeker]

These 211 certainly can run after losing an HPT blade, but there really is no point. It would be running extremely hot so increased risk of rather large fire and would also be produing less thrust. Further damage to an engine could also result, possible producing an uncontained blade failure. This could be seriuos if the offending blade severed something important, eg a double firwire loop. The QRH will also give instruction to shut down after engine exceedances.

2 IFDS in a few days is rather unfortunate and there was another in about June but this could be more to do with engine life rather than maintenance problems. You can go years without one then - bang two at once. Average at CX into LHR is about two a year, probably a little higher than some operators but less than others. E.G BA maintain all engines on the 744 to ETOPS standard where CX does not (as no 767s).

At the end of the day its all down to money, the more you spend on maintenance and overhaul the less IFSDs you will have (theoretically at least).

As for Jounalism, I think there are a few journo's out there who link stories together - its what they are paid for I suppose- and end up with 2+2=5. CX safety has been in the news a little of late but at least we seem to have been a little more open about it all this time round, this is a postive out of all this !!:)

[Globaliser]

I notice that this piece was in Flight for 26 November:-The great [inquiry] is now over. It would be inappropriate to discuss those matters upon which the Court is to pronounce. We would not attempt to try to assess the extent or accuracy of the information which members of the public in this and other countries may have gathered. While some "popular" newspapers have tried conscientiously but hopelessly to interpret the daily official transcript in 250-500 words, others have shamelessly picked this or that isolated remark out of context and endeavoured to build it up into a sensation. If the newspaper stores for the public are all the "benefit" that results from holding such an inquiry in public, it would have been better not to have done so. Aviation has gained little and suffered much.That was, of course, 26 November 1954, about the Comet enquiry (reprinted this week). Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Ignition Override]

Just curious how many hours to the (chosen by Captain) diversion airport if they had been over the Atlantic Ocean in an A-330 or 777 in the winter with an engine shutdown?

Can Cathay Captains (on any aircraft) choose a "suitable" airport (runway length/braking action/wind direction/weather/terrain, in a 'stable' country) within 2-3 hours flight time if considered necessary for safety of flight or is the decision mostly based on maintenance (logistics) economics, with policies determined by managers who have no solid flight experience? Incidentally, the CEO of American Airlines owns and flies a twin-recip. plane on his days off.

And how about Captains' decisions at Singapore and Korean Airlines, also being major 'Pacific Rim' airlines?:suspect:

[411A]

Dunno about now, Ignition Override, but when I was at SQ, the standard instruction from the head shed was 'nearest suitable, period' (four engine type) but I fully expect that if I dumped it in, say, Wake Island, they would not have been pleased...at all.:uhoh:

[Lou Scannon]

Regarding Pat Malone's comments:

What makes it worse is the current attitude of most pilots who refuse to believe that there are some good journos out there who do try to get the story right.

For example: Everyone seems prepared to knock David Learmont who at least tries to tell things how they are, and yet they refuse to help the press in any way themselves.

I've been reported on by both types of journalist: The ones who create a situation that verges on lies and the others who report so accurately that I subsequently carried their name with me in case I ever had a really big story to tell.

...The problem is in telling one from the other at first contact: Why don't we start a Pprune award for the ones that at least try? Or perhaps we could publish their names so that the profession could reward those who give us a fair crack of the whip.

[navtopilot]

As usual 411a is years out of date. In SIA these days days it is left to the Captains discretion. Having read of this incident from other web sights not just this one, I am inclined to have adopted exactley the course of action carried out by this crew. There was no emergency the only discussionn is wether to have landed maybe FRA or returned to LHR . Moscow with limited maint. hotac is last option under the circumstances.