Incident at Heathrow

[Cymmon]

News on the BBC about an incident that's closed 2 runways at Heathrow, hope everyone's ok.

[Invicta DC4]

BBC News channel reporting fire on board BA aircraft, all evacuated safely.

[gordonroxburgh]

Confirm that I seen aircraft fly overhead 5 miles out over Hounslow with a trail of smoke from what appear to be port engine. I was out of normal for the vapour in the air today , and that what took our attention.

[FlightCosting]

Short piece on BBC breakfast
BA say one of their aircraft evacuated on north runway no casualties but both runways closed

[IThink]

As all the fire service react to the incident on the North Runway it can and seems to have meant that there is no RFF cover for the other runway and hence it closes devoting all resources to the incident,

[TURIN]

I'm sat on a MAN bound 321. Driver says at least an hours delay for us. Some pax already getting off.

[Dubaian]

Sky News reporting fire incident in port engine. Slides deployed.

Edit - - - But Sky are now showing a video with the starboard engine smoking while on approach.

[limesoda]

BBC News - Heathrow Airport runways closed for emergency landing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22652718)

[speedbird_481_papa]

Sky News saying that it involves a BAW aircraft, both runways closed currently.

I also like how Sky News are saying that this is not terror-related

Thank Goodness all pax and staff evacuated safely! Sounds to me like a 'normal' emergency i.e a/c landed safely, all evacuated safely so nothing more to say really I feel

Full Qudos to all emergency personnel for a job very well done and not forgetting the flight deck for a remarkable job getting the thing on the ground! Video on Sky News showing an amateur footage clearly showing the no2/right hand engine trailing smoke.

Well done to all involved

[itinerant]

Sky confirming an A-319, slides deployed and pax evacuated. Witness saw it fly overhead, he heard the sound of an explosion and saw the right engine on fire. Video shows plane overhead, starboard engine trailing smoke. Possible arr from Oslo.

[Buster the Bear]

Looking at FR24 BAW762 departed, got as far as the LAM area and diverted back in.

[posh747]

Well done to all those crew/ATC/emergency services involved! That's why we train for these situations. Take it in your stride! Just another day in the office!

[readywhenreaching]

the Oslo morning flight came in with an A320 G-EUUY

[spoilers yellow]

Some reports suggesting may have hit a flock of birds.

[paul360m]

I'm west of LHR & planes now flying over so must be re-opened.

From an unofficial source, heard it was a birdstrike......

[DaveReidUK]

the Oslo morning flight came in with an A320 G-EUUY As already mentioned above, it was the departing Oslo flight, BAW762, which returned to LHR. :ugh:

A319 G-EUOE.

[Liam_Mulholalnd]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67790000/jpg/_67790014_de27-1.jpg

This is from the BBC

[Aerlingus231]

Reports suggesting that the left engine was shut down, then the right engine went on fire...

Fair dues to the pilots on board for getting it down safely... :D

[DaveReidUK]

27L reopened, currently single-runway operations for obvious reasons.

[Lower Hangar]

Aaaah - Airbus - that lovely all embracing ECAM etc

[juice]

Passenger tweeting as @TBoneGallagher has a photo of interest:

'So this was our left engine before the right one blew our BA 762. All ok. pic.twitter.com/vLa7kwj31X'

Very complimentary to BA in other tweets.

[DaveReidUK]

single-runway operationsAnd, unsurprisingly, some inbounds are starting to divert - EI030 from Belfast into Gatwick and BA1491 from GLA looks like it's bound for Bournemouth.

[Twitcher]

Manston has 2 x BA Airbus so far.. more are negotiating

[Buster the Bear]

Sky TV footage shows the Airbus on approach over the Thames with smoke or fuel vapor in trail, no sign of flames.

[TURIN]

That tweet photo (if accurate) suggests the left engine fan cowl has departed, but reports say the right engine had the failure.
Some twitching going on back at base today.

[tumtiddle]

Very interesting tweet linked above. Reports of the right engine with the smoke/fuel/vapour trail, yet the twitter picture and subsequent TV footage shows the left engine with missing panels? I'd certainly be interested to know what's happened here.

[stator vane]

a couple of trustable security guards to monitor the aircraft, (that might be the delay!) and tow the aircraft off the runway! silly delay!

[Aphrican]

From what the pax (and their pictures) seem to be saying, the crew shut down the left engine first and then had a problem with the right engine later. As a lowly PPL, I cannot imagine the workload and CDM required to deal with this situation. I guess that is why I fly BA whenever I can.

[Alycidon]

The footage from Sky news shows the fire crews attending the left engine, not sure why the right engine was smoking on the approach, maybe a fair amount of power being applied while it was being filmed?

[Junta Leader]

Not a happy day out. Bloody well done to the crew.

Twitter pic shows damage to the left, BBC TV coverage (on the rwy at LHR) certainly shows that the right was not that happy either.

JL:}

[Airclues]

Left engine badly damaged, right engine on fire.

Photo on post 34;

LHR Closed? - Page 3 - FlyerTalk Forums (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1469799-lhr-closed-3.html)

[Dct_Mopas]

Interesting picture here https://twitter.com/TBoneGallagher/status/337837849028206593/photo/1

Engine 1 damaged + engine 2 fire is certainly a bad combination for ECAM.

Aircraft is also positioned perfectly into the wind, as required with an engine fire to ensure any flames are blown to the rear.

Very well done to the crew

[MucDoo]

Watching the news, Video shows right engine trailing smoke, but left engine cowling forward of the reversers is definitely missing! Looks like the boys shut down number one and then had a fire in number two.........Ground witnesses now confirming that flames from number 2...


And now looking at picture of number one engine taken from inside the cabin in flight with cowlings missing and damaged....

[speedbird_481_papa]

that tweeted picture clearly shows that the left hand cowling has completely vanished. What is interesting which the report to follow will answer is that video footage clearly shows the right engine trailing smoke. Far to early to speculate here exactly what happened. But a dual engine failiure? Very Bizzare! But Sky Reporter claims it is a 'Boeing A319'!

Love it when they get their facts right ;-)

[DaveReidUK]

but left engine cowling forward of the reversers is definitely missing!

BBC now showing film from helicopter - cowlings on both the A319's engines are missing. Hmmm.

[tumtiddle]

Plane 'On Fire' Flying Over Central London (http://news.sky.com/story/1095039/plane-on-fire-flying-over-central-london)

Sky News has footage of the plane on approach. Definitely a trail of something from the starboard engine.

[GA Button]

Wonder if the aircraft had just been wheeled out of the hangar after maintenance......

[Nightstop]

The clips that secure the cowlings are on the underside of the engine(s) and not easy to see unless you crouch down & look. Was this first flight of the day?

[dead_pan]

Well done to all involved, incl those on the ground. Professional as ever.

BTW What's with this 'only BA' sentiment... There's plenty of professional airlines + crew out there.

[hobbit1983]

The clips that secure the cowlings are on the underside of the engine(s) and not easy to see unless you crouch down & look. Was this first flight of the day?

Shurley that could conceivably account for one cowling missing. But not both?

[EDMJ]

I like the multiple references to "customers", particularly in the BA press release. Don't they carry people anymore :confused:

[TURIN]

If it had just had maintenance on engine(s), verification checks are required by separate certifiers. I've seen cowlings also blown open by fire extinguishers too.

[squarehole]

Ouch
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/5/24/239413/default/v2/9225784-1-1-522x293.jpg
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/5/24/239402/default/v3/david-gallagher1-1-522x293.jpg

[xyzzy]

If it turns out that it's first flight of the day and a similar cowling issue on each side, one is reminded of G-OBMM, February 1995.

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/689.pdf

Edit to add: not in terms of being a boroscope, just in terms of similar work being done on both sides in the same session, and a simple mistake therefore being replicated on both sides.

[newjourno]

The passenger who tweeted the picture above, @TBoneGallagher has just been interviewed on the BBC.

Quick notes: 8-9 minutes into flight, there was a loud popping sound. Looked to left window, left side engine cover blown off. Apparently the same happened on the right at the same sort of time.

Captain came on intercom, said they were aware, both engines were functioning normally, they were running tests.

About five minutes after that, loud sound, right engine clearly on fire, flames, smoke visible from cabin.

Plane banked to right, no more severely than normal LHR stacking, flew back to LHR.

The flight was no less smooth than normal.

Cabin crew very professional.

[DaveReidUK]

If it turns out that it's first flight of the day

The aircraft's previous flight was from Stavanger yesterday evening (BA747), landing at LHR 21:32 local time.

[fireflybob]

Quick notes: 8-9 minutes into flight, there was a loud popping sound. Looked to left window, left side engine cover blown off. Apparently the same happened on the right at the same sort of time.

Airspeed related? - about the time you'd be accelerating above 250 kts?

[Alycidon]

The picture taken from inside by a passenger in flight of the No.1 engine right hand cowling shows only half a cowling, the honeycomb internal structure seems to be torn apart about halfway down.

The whole No.1 left hand cowling seems to be missing, what sort of bird did they hit? Must have been a big one!

[tubby linton]

It will be interestig to see what other damage has been caused to the airframe. If you google" A320 fan cowl separations" the reports often indicate some damage to the horizontal stab caused by the exiting cowl.

[newjourno]

Tracking info from planefinder.

Aircraft took off at about 0820, turned to the north east.

About 0825 just east of Potters Bar it turned east south east, altitude apparently c6,000.

Then turned west above Billericay at about 0830, apparently similar altitude.

And then back in to LHR, landing 0844.

[Nightstop]

there was a loud popping sound

Classic symptoms of engine surge/stall due to disrupted intake airflow after the cowlings detached.

[Blondie2005]

Reminds me of an engine failure and emergency landing when I was flying from Newcastle to Gatwick approx 20 years ago. I am a humble passenger: all you professionals on here do such a great job. Sorry if this interrupts your techy chat about today - do carry. I just wanted to pay my own tribute to a very skilled and professional body of men and women.

[luoto]

I will only add why the media often mention the (lack of) terror incident thing.

When things are a bit more sensitive, some people would jump to conclusions wrongly (BA aircraft engine on fire, circs unknown, emerg. landing) so to immediately seek to rule out terror just "reassures" the more excitable members of Joe Public. And the cynic in me says the "not believed to be..." makes it easier to do a 180 degree turn should it even be thought to be terror orientated (writing generally, not about today's incident of course).

I hope that the senior executives of BA will be remembering to give the crew some deserved praise for making a successful emergency landing (even though it is "just doing their job" and something they've trained for). Some things still need recognition.

May I just ask a slightly diverting question more out of idle curiosity? After such an incident where there is absolutely no suggestion of it being due to the fault of the operating crew, would the crew still be "sidelined" from operational duty for a period of time to "get over" any stress/issues/etc or would they reasonably be rostered on to their next flights after the paperwork and meetings have been undertaken?

[MrMachfivepointfive]

To pre-empt the outcome of the official investigation: Sully - move over. These guys did everything right. Just amazing!

[RTM Boy]

Given the reported time elapsed after takeoff and altitude when passengers noticed problems, it makes a birdstrike far less likely because at this time of year geese (it would need to be that size to create the kind of problems) are v unlikely to be moving about at the height and in the formation needed to damage both engines. It is just possible, but if so it's really a very freak event.

If media reports from passengers are correct more concerning is if port engine was shut down and starboard was alight, it's a wonder they got back to R27 at all. I'm glad I don't live in Hounslow.

[SevenSeas]

Somebody somewhere must have a strange big blue thing in their back garden, any reports of large lumps falling from the sky ?

[pez1]

With both cowls missing from both engines, it looks like there's a strong possibilty that the fan cowls weren't latched properly/if at all.
I would think it highly unlikely that the engine fire bottles blew the cowls as only the right engine looked like it had a fire issue which 'could' have been caused by the cowl damaging fuel/oil lines as it depated that engine.
It will be interesting to see if the engines had maintenance caried out on them prior to this flight.
Obviously this is all purely speculation and my own views, but from the photos/footage I've seen it's an educated guess.

We'll have to wait for more information and investigtion to confirm or otherwise.

Either way, great job by the crew and all involved.

[GobonaStick]

With both cowls missing from both engines, it looks like there's a strong possibilty that the fan cowls weren't latched properly/if at all.


As was mentioned on Tw!tter, it's a well-known A320 problem.

[tom775257]

I remember my first line flight on an aircraft with IAE-V2500s, the training captain said to me on the walk around, 'always bend down and check the fan cowl latches are actually secured, they can easily be left unlatched and not noticed' or words to that effect.

I assume that is too simple an explanation.

[PPRuNeUser0171]

just reading this report about a previous A319 engine cowl separation and there do seem to be a lot of similarities to what has been described for the BA incident -> Airline Accident: Incident - July 13, 2004 - Atlanta, Ga. | Investigative Reporting Workshop (http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/flying-cheap/incident/20040719X01004/1/)

Could a cowl separation damage other engine components causing a fire though?

[Seloco]

Somebody somewhere must have a strange big blue thing in their back garden, any reports of large lumps falling from the sky ?

Make that at least FOUR large lumps!

[TomU]

Re the comment that unlatched cowls would be difficult to see - If my memory serves me correctly the Fan Cowls have a sprung plunger at the front to hold the cowls visibly open if not latched.....

[ILS27LEFT]

A "serious" flight incident of this type can have totally different outcomes: the final results (including passengers perception of events, trauma, etc) can be completely different depending on the critical skills of both Pilots but also depending on the passenger handling and evacuation skills of Cabin Crew.
Insufficient/inappropriate pilot skills can clearly have a massive impact on serious incidents outcomes (as we have seen many times), at the same time the evacuation part is also critical as once the plane stops you have to save those lives quickly and the task is not easy under real pressure and panic.
I call ithis incident "serious" as it seems this was a double engine problem rather than just one engine being shut down, which would be a totally different type of incident.
The handling of this serious incident is a clear reminder for the Airline Industry and all passengers that you definitely pay for what you get, a reminder for all those involved that a motivated, engaged, decently paid and well trained valued workforce will always perform better than those underpaid, undervalued, overworked, not engaged etc.
Luck always plays a very important role but a well paid, well trained, well engaged Flight Crew and Cabin Crew can clearly save lives. I have no doubts on this aspect.:ok:
Well done to BA again! :D

[DaveReidUK]

From a 2009 FAA "Information to Operators":

Recommended Action: Air Carriers who operate Airbus single isle [sic] A319-132 and Bombardier CL-600-2B19 model airplanes are recommended to develop a training program for maintenance personnel and flightcrews on inspection procedures to verify that the engine-fan’s cowl to be latched. It is also recommended to revise their procedures to require maintenance personnel to inform flightcrews when engine-fan cowls have been opened before flight.It's not clear why the A319-132 is specifically nominated rather than all the IAE-engined single-aisle models (the BA aircraft is an A319-131).

The NTSB were less specific when they made a number of Safety Recommendations in 2008, citing 15 fan cowl separation events since 1992 across the Airbus SA family.

[Wings of steel]

Interesting viewing the track of the aircraft and the other available options the crew had to shorten the experience and avoid single engine flight over the capital. Standsted, Luton or military runway. Considering both engines appear effected!

[Tiennetti]

Fire exstinguisher could blew one of the engine's cowls... because to use the fire exstinguisher, you need to cut all connections (electrical, fuel, hyd, bleed) from the engines before dishcharging
That means, no way they could have done that on both engines

[Siyouma]

This looks like it on Heathrow Cam to me. Fire seems to be out before they land? Engine looks a mess even from this low res image.

http://heathrowcam.net/images/300063w.JPG

[Rick Studder]

The flight crew's handling of the incident certainly seems adequate, but what's with this blind and automatic praise of BA? If the fan cowl latches were not secured — and that is a big if at this point — is that also what you pay for when you fly BA?

It's much too early for both praise and criticism.

[ALTSEL]

Why did LHR close "both" runways?? or did hear wrong?

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Why did LHR close "both" runways?? or did hear wrong?
Reduced firefighting capability remaining... ?

[MrYeti]

I guess if they call a Mayday then LHR will clear all traffic and make both runways available.

Also someone suggested that if all emergency crews are responding to 27R then there is no cover for 27L and that may also have been a reason.

[STN Ramp Rat]

Given the reported time elapsed after takeoff and altitude when passengers
noticed problems, it makes a birdstrike far less likely because at this time of
year geese (it would need to be that size to create the kind of problems) are v
unlikely to be moving about at the height and in the formation needed to damage
both engines. It is just possible, but if so it's really a very freak
event.


not to mention a complete lack of "evidence" in the photos published thus far, as ground crew I have seen a number of aircraft return after bird strikes and there is generally a lot of bird(s) remains spread all over the fuselage and/or wings

[gatbusdriver]

As someone who flies for another carrier, I would certainly have stuffed it in, thank God it happened to the right airline.

[Flightmech]

Fire exstinguisher could blew one of the engine's cowls... because to use the fire exstinguisher, you need to cut all connections (electrical, fuel, hyd, bleed) from the engines before dishcharging
That means, no way they could have done that on both engines

Dont mean to contradict, but discharging a fire bottle into an engine isn't going to cause the cowlings to detach:ugh:Don't think it would ever get certified in the first place if that happened:E

[ILS27LEFT]

Heathrow: l'atterraggio di emergenza ripreso da un passeggero - Repubblica Tv - la Repubblica.it (http://video.repubblica.it/mondo/heathrow-l-atterraggio-di-emergenza-ripreso-da-un-passeggero/129446/127949)

[Siyouma]

What's the material flapping around at the top of the engine on that?

Feathers?!

[Flightmech]

mmm. several people there had their hand luggage with them:=

[ayroplain]

The handling of this serious incident is a clear reminder for the Airline Industry and all passengers that you definitely pay for what you get, a reminder for all those involved that a motivated, engaged, decently paid and well trained valued workforce will always perform better than those underpaid, undervalued, overworked, not engaged etc.
Luck always plays a very important role but a well paid, well trained, well engaged Flight Crew and Cabin Crew can clearly save lives. I have no doubts on this aspect.
Well done to BA again!

The delusionary arrogance of this comment is positively breathtaking.

[bizdev]

Yes - this is well known on Airbus aircraft - many incidents of losing cowlings in flight - some with dramatic consequences (damage to pax windows and leading edges of horizontal stabilizer) - one of the original 'fixes' was to paint the latches day-glow red to make them more obvious - but this still required you to get on your knees to check as the cowls look closed though their own weight.

[Thunderbirdsix]

A major bird strike at Rome for Ryanair a while back and the crew got it down safely dont know what you are on about ILS272LEFT

The handling of this serious incident is a clear reminder for the Airline Industry and all passengers that you definitely pay for what you get, a reminder for all those involved that a motivated, engaged, decently paid and well trained valued workforce will always perform better than those underpaid, undervalued, overworked, not engaged etc.


More detail has emerged about what the Ryanair (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Ryanair.html) Boeing 737-800 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/boeing%20737.aspx) crew faced following a multiple birdstrike on short final approach to Rome Ciampino airport (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/10/318623/picture-ryanair-cites-multiple-bird-strike-as-737-overruns-at-rome.html)on 10 November.
According to sources close to the investigation, when the crew sighted a huge flock of starlings ahead they initiated a go-around, but the birds rose into the flightpath and the aircraft suffered a considerable loss of power on both engines.
The crew were flying the aircraft manually when, passing about 200ft (60m), the starlings - an estimated 1,000 in number - "engulfed" the aeroplane, and the fan speed on the engines dropped from its normal approach setting of about 65% to 40%, and moving the power levers produced no result. Within 30s of the pilots' first sighting of the birds the aircraft had made a hard landing and come to a halt on the runway.
Ryanair congratulated the pilots and cabin crew of the aircraft in a 10 December ceremony at its Frankfurt (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Frankfurt.html) Hahn (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Hahn.html) base in Germany.
The carrier's safety director Michael Horgan says: "To bring the aircraft to a safe landing following a major loss of power on both engines required a level of composure and skill that is a credit to both Capt Frederic Colson and first officer Alexander Vet and underscores the exceptional flying standards that have always been the hallmark of Ryanair's safety and training operations."

[berkshire boy]

"I also like how Sky News are saying that this is not terror-related."

I don't think that anyone can blame the media in this instance when -

The Metropolitan Police attended the emergency and tweeted (https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/337860639701753856): "Police at Heathrow assisted in the response to the emergency landing. It is not being treated as a terrorist incident at this time." [Quoted from the BBC website]

[Lone_Ranger]

Siyouma, It appears to be a strap and seems to match the width of the more rigid strap along the inside of and extending from the nearside cowl portion.

[ComJam]

Gatbusdriver: I didn't know it was possible to get such a sarcastic tone out of typing! Brilliant :}

[Cows getting bigger]

... and it would appear that BA have cancelled all LHR short-haul flights until after 4:00pm today.

[Walnut]

Thats sensible as most S/H flts are A320. They would not want a repeat incident

[NigelOnDraft]

Why did LHR close "both" runways?? or did hear wrong?Takeoff 27L, have eng problem, (maybe) leave debris (birds / cowlings / turbine blades). Not good idea to leave RW open (AF Concorde) :{

Aircraft now needs 27R to land on, then parked there with half of London's emergency vehicles until AAIB permit it cleared and all sorted.

[Wander00]

Single-engine landing always a challenge - so well done to the pilots, and judging by the attitude of the pax the cabin crew did a sterling job too - well done all

[DaveReidUK]

Good to see no mention on any of the reports AFAIK of any injuries whatsoever - if the crew got 75 pax down the slides without so much as a sprained risk, more kudos to them.

And, unlike Vnukovo last week, not a piece of hand baggage in sight.

[Man frm the Ministry]

I assume the 16:00 blanket shorthaul cancellations highlights the problem of operating a single manufacturing fleet at LHR.

[EastofKoksy]

I suppose if it turns out to be a maintenance issue BA will want to let the issue drop asap. If not, I suppose we can expect another nauseatingly smug press conference as happened after the 777 from PEK landed a bit sooner than intended.

[direct ortac]

Why both RWYs closed? Likely no fire cover as all in attendance at the incident

[Vlad the Impaler]

Man from the ministry. The short haul cancellation is most likely a reaction to the no doubt through the roof delays. Pretty standard practice for BA to can the short haul when there is major disruption.

[Walnut]

What I find odd about the pictures & reports is why the crew left the R Eng running when clearly it was on fire? Could it be that the L Eng had already been shut down or was producing abnormal readings. There was no fire after landing from the R Eng which suggests that it was then shut down by the crew after a safe arrival had been made??

[Man frm the Ministry]

You assume incorrectly. It's done to free up landing slots to get the schedule back on track as quickly as possible. Another problem with LHR operating at maximum capacity.

I stand corrected if you know better, however my comment about a single type/family fleet could still apply.

[tatin]

Skynews and others are wrong in stating that smoke is coming from the right engine, that is fuel coming out. Which means a rupture in the fuel feed lines.

Feathers do not stay on top of an engine with airspeeds that high, so no, that`s not a feather on the left engine.

The right engine was not on fire when they landed, so the fire services did not put the fire out as stated in the media. They prevented it from setting alight.

[flexthrust]

Good job by the crew. Just auto land with the good engine :ok:

[Seloco]

Interesting to see from the onboard video of the landing that they used the reverser on that damaged left engine. Do systems allow the flight crew to assess the risk of such deployment in this situation?

[Flightmech]

Skynews and others are wrong in stating that smoke is coming from the right engine, that is fuel coming out. Which means a rupture in the fuel feed lines.

So let me get this right. A rupture in the fuel feed lines causes fuel to come out of the tailpipe:ugh:

[noughtsnones]

L Eng TR deployed on landing, so I would speculate it was running.
R Eng behaviour due to continued fluid loss, even with windmill speed pumping; but which of fuel, oil or hydraulics :confused:

[Airclues]

tatin

Runways closed at Heathrow Airport after BA plane makes emergency landing | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330187/Runways-closed-Heathrow-Airport-BA-plane-makes-emergency-landing.html)

The sixth photo looks as though there has been a fire. Also, eye-witnesses on the ground report that there were flames coming from the right engine.

Edit;

On the BBC News a passenger on the flight has stated that they could see the flames from the right engine.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Reassuring to know that pax in a damaged aeroplane seem to think its OK to further hazard proceedings by so blatantly contravening safety instructions and using electronic devices during landing.

I rather hope he gets strung up for that.

[OPENDOOR]

Echos of Kegworth?

[DaveReidUK]

Not a very clear photo, but here it is just after crossing the threshold:

http://heathrowcam.net/images/300063w.JPG

The No2 engine fan cowl can just about [not] be seen.

[Three Blades]

Firstly well done to the crew and airport services.

Given that we have an incident with an aircraft where there are potential problems with both engines, is there any prescident to arrange the divertion to one of the other London airports on the basis that it does not involve an approach over a large population density ? Or do we believe that Heathrow would have been the closest (seems unlikely if their track took them over Essex) ? More ammunition for Boris Island I think.

[172driver]

Well handled, congrats the crew.

BUT - how wise is it to return to LHR from the LAM area, crossing all of central London in this case? Especially, as there is no shortage of airports to the E and NE of London (Stansted, Southend, Manston).

[LookingForAJob]

First off, whatever cause may be determined, it looks and sounds like everybody involved in the incident did their jobs competently and produced a safe (and, probably, the best) outcome....as you would expect from professional operators, whether on the aircraft or on the ground.

The comments regarding BAW vs. other aircraft operators are completely inappropriate. There are professional operators the world over, just as there are less professional outfits. And for anyone wondering whether they are involved with one of the less professional orgainisations, ask yourself not whether you 'would have stuffed it in' (thanks for that gatbusdriver :D) but whether your organisation prepares you and every other part of its operation to handle the incident in a good way.

And another thing....Heathrow: l'atterraggio di emergenza ripreso da un passeggero - Repubblica Tv - la Repubblica.it So which bit of the safety briefing does this pax not understand?

Now I know that the evidence on whether portable electronics affects aircraft systems is equivocal but the simple fact is, the briefings say don't use them. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

Media coverage gets worse ....

Here's (quote) the "Surveillance track of BA762" (whose surveillance, exactly?)

https://twitpic.com/show/large/csse7a.jpg

Clearly if the fan cowls hadn't already fallen off, they would have done during that 10g turn over Brentwood. :ugh:

Surveillance track of BA762, flight involved in Heathrow evac... on Twitpic (http://twitpic.com/csse7a)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Speculation.
So, there's a walkround check item which requires a pilot to get his/her trouser knees dirty?
Guess what BA company policy is on dirty trousers?

Which is more noticeable - checks not done properly ("Looks good enough from here") or dirty trouser knees?

Admin policy, certainly in RAF accidents 20 years ago, was at least a minor contributory factor in a third of all cases.


Would seem to me to be better airmanship to take off with the checks done properly, than to display excellent handling of an unnecessary emergency.

[silverstrata]

>>Here's (quote) the "Surveillance track of BA762"

Nice to see they were keeping it clear of London, just in case. But then there is always that dirty-dive across London for the ILS lock-on. Surprised they did not go to Stanstead instead.

Of course if we had a Thames Gateway (Silver-Boris) airport, we would not have this problem.

[clicker]

OK I'm only SLF but until every airline has the same incident in the same circs you just cannot state that one airline would not handle the incident as well as the BA crew.

I'm sure that many other airlines would handle this just as well so don't use this to knock loco's and their crews.

[blaggerman]

Why both RWYs closed? Likely no fire cover as all in attendance at the incidentAnd perhaps the departure runway might also warrant an inspection?

[tubby linton]

How wise is it to return to LHR from the LAM area, crossing all of central London in this case? Especially, as there is no shortage of airports to the E and NE of London (Stansted, Southend, Manston).

Heathrow has the longest runway in the south east and it also has two runways to choose from. It is also BA's home base and the crew may/probably have put a return to LHR in the secondary flight plan before departure and briefed this.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Nice to see they were keeping it clear of London,>>

They?

[ManaAdaSystem]

Getting your knees dirty?? OK, I only fly 737, but I don't need to get my knee on the ground to look under the engines. On the 737, the cowls don't stay shut if they are not latched properly. You would need to be half blind to overlook an unlocked cowl.
I actually though the 320 was the same, but obviously not.
So, if they departed with engine cowlings unlocked, should we praise BA for sloppy maintenance and a poor preflight inspection by the crew?

[Uplinker]

You don't need to put your knee on the ground to look under the cowls of an IAE engine. Just crouch and maybe put one hand down. It's SOP with us to visually check the engine cowl latches.

Even if you do put your knee on the ground, ramps are usually pretty clean, and anyway uniform trousers are black, so it wouldn't show!

[BARKINGMAD]

Post G-OBMM, the recommendation was NOT to perform critical maintenance on both engines of twins at the same time.

If cowlings on 'buses can be regarded as critical, then one has to ask if and why this was allowed?

The choice of an approach over London will be interesting to discuss at the debrief! :=

[bbrown1664]

Post G-OBMM, the recommendation was NOT to
perform critical maintenance on both engines of twins at the same
time.


IF (and it is a BIG IF) the problem is found to be unlocked cowlings, I would not assume they had performed critical maintenance on both engines at the same time unless you consider the daily checks like oil top ups are critical. If you do, how the hell can you avoid it?

[Uplinker]

Contrary to what most SLF believe, a modern commercial airplane with an engine problem will not fall out of the sky.

[Spunky Monkey]

OPENDOOR

"Echos of Kegworth"?

eh?

What do you mean by that?

Are you suggesting that they shut down the wrong engine?

What a bizarre comment.

[DaveReidUK]

one presumes they asked for vectors back, and ATC kept them clear of London. Do you have a problem with that assumption?One presumes/assumes incorrectly.

The aircraft was on the localiser by about 18nm out, just south of LCY, and its track from that point was like pretty well any other 27R arrival, taking it about a mile to the south of the Houses of Parliament.

Hardly "clear of London".

[dead_pan]

Short video clip from on board:

Onboard video shows plane emergency landing | Video | Reuters.com (http://uk.reuters.com/video/2013/05/24/onboard-video-shows-plane-emergency-land?videoId=242989968&videoChannel=1)

It appears the PAX unilaterally ignored the "leave your personal belongings on board" instruction - I can see at least two iPads at the end of the clip.

[BARKINGMAD]

Uplinker, the "wagging finger" was to represent the sort of treatment which can and has been meted out to flight crew after incidents such as this.

I sincerely hope that this crew does NOT experience such treatment after the facts come out, but Der Management can sometimes lapse into this mode especially post high profile events like this one.

Also, IF the practice of scheduled maintenance on 2/2 engines on a twin has crept back into operation because G-OBMM was so long ago, then I like to think those responsible for that policy be subjected to a very public shouting and finger-wagging session!

I didn't know that a simple exercise like daily inspection oil top-ups required cowlings open? The last time I checked a dipstick on a '56 involved a small access panel halfway up the side, but I wait to be educated. :ugh:

[Walnut]

We will soon know what happened as they will have access to the QAR.
If the L eng was giving concern then even if the R eng was on fire you would probably throttle it just in case the L eng suddenly stopped.
Re the routing the a/c would have been at about 6000ft when it starting turning back so a dead stick glide would only give you 12nm. Clearly they had some power as they did a reversal at that point, to lose height & buy time. Well handled but some concern about two problematical powerplants??

[DaveReidUK]

Post G-OBMM, the recommendation was NOT to perform critical maintenance on both engines of twins at the same time.I don't think that recommendation (which was only to "consider issuing advice to aircraft maintenance organisations that, where practical, work which can effect [sic] the airworthiness of an engine should not be conducted on all of the powerplant installations of an aircraft at one point in time by the same personnel") ever made it into the rule book, except inasmuch as there are, I believe, corresponding provisions which apply specifically to ETOPS.

[busTRE]

These will be V2522s not CFMs, don't know if they have the same access panel.

[procede]

@dead_pan
It's not the tablets that are the problem, it is the suitcases that clog up the aisle (I think there are a few of these). My tablet is always in my lap whilst flying, so it would take more time to store it than to take it with me.

[WhyByFlier]

JetPhotos.Net Photo » N951LF (CN: 460) airTran Airways (Ryan International Airlines) Airbus A320-232 by Tal Erickson (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=364388)

That was a V2500 engine with an unlocked cowl.

Untitled Page (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20040719X01004&ntsbno=ATL04IA156&akey=1) - NTSB report

Bloody unlucky to have a double whammy. Debris from doors ripping off and going into the engine would be enough to cause a fire too I'd have thought.

[lomapaseo]

So much info to read and too little facts



but parsing through some of the stuff does simplify this down to some meat.



Examination on the ground should be quick and straightforward (no doubt already done) regarding the cowl latches and the condition of the engine damage internal and external. Bird evidence would also be confirmed as yes or no.



The inflight stuff takes a little longer to sort out (symptoms vs response)



The LH engine appears to be operating during landing based on reverser actuation.



The guys taking the video of smoke trails on the f ground also make the comment that it started with flashes of flame before turning into a continuous smoke trail (typical of engine surging non recoverable)



I agree that first flight coming out of maintenance is one of the ingredients to cowls not be firmly latched. I don't recall however, incidents of collateral engine damage leading to a loss of power.



no sense of any further speculation unless/until some new facts are known

[BOAC]

"Debris from doors ripping off and going into the engine would be enough to cause a fire too I'd have thought." ??????

[ManaAdaSystem]

That picture of the AirTran engine looks very similar to the BA in todays incident.

[WhyByFlier]

Well it wouldn't necessarily cause a fire would it? Failure probably but not necessarily a fire.

What's your point BOAC?

[busTRE]

Debris from engine doors would be very unlikely to find its way into the engine gas path. Damage to ancilliaries and surrounding components is a possibility though.

[WhyByFlier]

I should have said could not would. Enough holes in the swiss cheese lined up for them today so it's a possibility. I shaln't speculate further as I don't know - when I saw the BA picture I was reminded of the picture I posted - that is all!

[misd-agin]

Feathers do not stay on top of an engine with airspeeds that high, so no, that`s not a feather on the left engine.

Birdstrike on departure. Flew 300kt climb, .78 cruise for 3+ hrs, 300 kt descent. Found feathers on N1 blade after landing.

Strange things do happen.

[Nightstop]

I would not assume they had performed critical maintenance on both engines at the same time unless you consider the daily checks like oil top ups are critical

Replacing the oil caps after a Daily is critical & requires a duplicate inspection too...

[NigelOnDraft]

Leave aside the current incident.

Do any of the airline pilots on here (not the MS Sim variety;) ) in your sims actually base your diversion airfield / approach on the population pattern below?

I sure as hell do not, never have done, and do not propose to start! My training and practice is to look after crew / PAX as #1, and aircraft next. 3rd parties - sorry, no factor.

Leaving aside the issue of even knowing when there is populaiton under you from approach charts etc.

[DaveReidUK]

Damage to ancilliaries and surrounding components is a possibility though. That Northwest A319 in 2008 suffered substantial damage to the horizontal stab when a single (No2 outboard) fan cowl detached.

In today's incident the aircraft appears to have lost at least 3, if not all 4, so it was very fortunate that none of them (apparently) hit anything vital when departing.

[TURIN]

Years ago BA used to operate a twin engine maintenance policy which dictated that similar maintenance actions would not be carried out on both engines (of a twin) by the same persons, unless a flight/engine run was carried out between one and the other. I think this policy was superceded by ETOPS.

If this incident, and it still is a big if, was the result of cowlings not latched, some serious quality control effort has gone badly wrong. The holes in the swiss cheese very nearly all lined up. The question is why and I will just say, there for the grace of....etc. :hmm:

Replacing the oil caps after a Daily is critical & requires a duplicate inspection too...

Nightstop, are you sure about that?

[NigelOnDraft]

I ask simply because I don't understand why they took the risk of flying 20 miles over central London on 1/2 an engine when they had a great runway a few minutes awayWhat "risk" did they take in pilot decision making terms? What track miles from their position when they took their decision was STN22 v LHR 27R? Were track miles / time to land uppermost in their mind? What additional time would it take to brief an approach to somewhere unfamiliar than somewhere you've landed at 20x a month for the last X years?

You clearly know the answers to those, so will await with interest. I haven't a clue, but suspect in the same circs it is 95% likely I would have used LHR 27R.

[demomonkey]

I guess familiarity



If LHR is your home base vs STN isn't
You have the LHR procedures/frequencies drummed into your brain vs not having the faintest about STN
You still have the LHR booklet open vs the STN one being hidden in a diversions manual at the back somewhere
Technically STN could be less track miles away but if it takes you 5 mins to set it up and brief it rather than 30 seconds to say "Back to 27R?" which is better?


I'm sure the crew would have taken a look at the situation and if they had perceived serious doubts about their ability to make it back to LHR would have put it down on the nearest bit of tarmac too them anyway possible. We also do not know for sure what indications were received and when so it's easy for us to hypothesize incorrect conclusions. I'm sure the AAIB will publish their considered opinions when appropriate.

To the crew, both sides of the lock door, all I can say is :D:D:D:D:D

[ManaAdaSystem]

The guys were probably busy dealing with the problems, doing check lists, communicating with ATC, company, pax, crew, etc, so the extra track miles (time) could have been needed for all of this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been other emergencies into LHR where ATC have directed the aircraft to other, secondary LON airports?

[spet0789]

@NigelOnDraft (http://www.pprune.org/members/25585-nigelondraft) Thanks - I think that's the interesting point.

I've only ever flown SE aircraft and as I'm sure you know you're always thinking then what's beneath you both for your own safety as everyone else's (and Rule 5)!

I suppose the point is that airlines discount to zero the chance of a total loss of power and so for them what's on the ground is somewhat irrelevant. And as you say won't even appear on IFR charts.

So... to you and the airline pilots on this thread - if you had secured one engine and the other was suspect, what would you have done? Changed your plan and diverted elsewhere or returned over the 25 mile urban area to your original alternate?

[busTRE]

NOD

No I don't either and never will. What is safest for the A/C will usually be safest for people on ground too. The best way of protecting those on the ground is to get it to a runway safely.

[NigelOnDraft]

but there have been other emergencies into LHR where ATC have directed the aircraft to other, secondary LON airports? Some examples would be of interest ;) As well as clarifiying by what you mean by "direct"? I tend to tell ATC where I will be diverting to, after making a team based decision with my colleague, not by asking ATC. Else sims would be a lot easier ;) If they read their pre-prepared speech about "LHR being busy go elshewere blah blah" I turn the RT down for a couple of minutes :oh:

[jackharr]

It’s not a matter of IF but WHEN something major occurs at/near Heathrow.........or over London.

And the “wise men” (except of course Boris & Co) want to rule out an airport in the Thames Estuary.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

To the crew, both sides of the lock door, all I can say is :D:D:D:D:D

Always assuming they checked the cowling latches on the walk-round, that is :cool:

[Kalium Chloride]

Photos of the starboard engine looking a bit poorly here:

Cowls missing from both engines on BA A319 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cowls-missing-from-both-engines-on-ba-a319-386327/)

[Totally_Bananas]

24 mins airborne time and flying over one of the worlds most populated cities...

with LTN or STN very close.

Interesting decision!!

Glad it all worked out well in the end.

[LookingForAJob]

Although the crew of an aircraft with a problem will have first call on routes etc., in the absence of any preference guidance to UK controllers is:
It is desirable that aircraft in an emergency should not be routed over densely populated areas, particularly if there is reason to believe that the aircraft’s ability to remain in controlled flight is compromised or that parts of the aircraft could detach in flight. If this is inconsistent with providing the most appropriate service to the aircraft, for example when any extended routeing could further jeopardise the safety of the aircraft, the most expeditious route is the one that should be given. Where possible,
when expeditious routeing is not required, suggestions of alternative runways or aerodromes together with the rationale that the routeing would avoid densely populated areas and be consistent with safety, shall be passed to the pilot and his intentions requested.

It is recognised that controllers providing en route services at ACCs may not be aware of the boundaries of major cities, towns or villages. However, controllers providing aerodrome, approach or approach radar control services should be familiar with the centres of population within their areas of jurisdiction.

Controllers should be aware that aircraft experiencing engine failure may also
experience associated handling difficulties and should therefore limit manoeuvring instructions to the minimum necessary.
As I recall, this guidance came about after an AAIB recommendation where an aircraft with severe problems (perhaps only evident after the flight was completed) was vectored over central London.

Important note - I do not seek to suggest that this has any relevance to today's events.

[WHBM]

I guess familiarity


If LHR is your home base vs STN isn't
You have the LHR procedures/frequencies drummed into your brain vs not having the faintest about STN
You still have the LHR booklet open vs the STN one being hidden in a diversions manual at the back somewhere
Technically STN could be less track miles away but if it takes you 5 mins to set it up and brief it rather than 30 seconds to say "Back to 27R?" which is better?

I'm sure the crew would have taken a look at the situation and if they had perceived serious doubts about their ability to make it back to LHR would have put it down on the nearest bit of tarmac too them anyway possible.
Of course, these points all seem to be counted not significant for the substantial number of following aircraft which had to be subsequently diverted to Stansted, without seemingly any of the concerns above.

It would also have avoided the gross interruption to BA's business for the rest of the day.

[Del Prado]

If they read their pre prepared speech about "Heathrow being busy go elshewere blah blah" I turn the RT down for a couple of minutes

Well said. Although to be fair it wouldn't be used in circumstances similar to today's.

Question- if you depart 09R (for example) would you brief for a return (in the event of emergency) to 09L as that is the landing runway?

[BBK]

In the absence of any hard facts to the contrary then at face value the crew did a good job. Well done. The passengers are back safely and the technical investigation can begin although that won't stop ill informed speculation here on pprune!

Regarding diverting to another airport then I imagine those comments are made by non pilots as it would be usual for the flight crew to want to return to their home base in a high workload situation. That doesn't mean that that aspect will not be examined by the AAIB. My experienced of chatting to AAIB inspectors is that they look at everything.

Del Prado 9L is the longer runway so that would make it a good choice all things being equal.

[Flap 5]

There will certainly be interesting lessons to learn from this, especially as the crew got the aircraft back on the ground intact.

The crew would not need to know the Stansted ILS frequency. They could just enter EGSS and the runway in use as the alternate destination, accept radar vectors to the ILS, use the autopilot (with the rudder trimmed correctly on the A319) and fly the approach and landing. The database knows the ILS frequency and, if necessary, ATC knows it anyway.

I wonder if BA practise engine failures in the simulator using the autopilot? It would seem sensible to use it as you can on the A319, as long as the rudder is trimmed, but simulator base checks normally require manually flown engine failure procedures. Certainly the Kegworth incident may well have been different if the captain had used the autopilot instead of flying manually as per his training. It allows you to monitor the situation much better.

[coffeewhiteone]

Question- if you depart 09R (for example) would you brief for a return (in the event of emergency) to 09L as that is the landing runway?

Interesting question. Many people suggest that ATC would want you to land back on the take off runway following a failure on takeoff. The reason being it is easier to delay aircraft sat on the ground on the taxiway queuing for departure than it is to mess up the stream of aircraft on the approach.

Personally I brief to land on the landing runway as following a catastrophic failure on takeoff would lead to a runway closure by NATs as engine debris, bits of birds and engine/hydraulic fluids may be contaminating the runway requiring a full runway inspection.

[DaveReidUK]

As I recall, this guidance came about after an AAIB recommendation where an aircraft with severe problems (perhaps only evident after the flight was completed) was vectored over central London.Yes, if you're referring to the Evergreen B741 event, the full extent of the aircraft's incapacity wasn't initially known (to ATC):

ATC’s intention was to use 35 track miles from when the aircraft was heading 315º to radar vector it from the left base position onto the final approach. At that stage the controllers believed that the aircraft was capable of reduced thrust and not suffering a total loss of thrust on the three remaining engines. It was only when the co-pilot transmitted the warning that there may not be enough power to make the landing did the full extent of the problem become known.

[coffeewhiteone]

I wonder if BA practise engine failures in the simulator using the autopilot? It would seem sensible to use it as you can on the A319, as long as the rudder is trimmed, but simulator base checks normally require manually flown engine failure procedures.

Yes this is practised. Engine failures with and without autopilot. Of course the engine failure on takeoff won't involve an AP but at 100ft this can be engaged all the way down to a CAT3A autoland which is recommended to reduce workload.

[spet0789]

Well, let's see what the AAIB have to say.

Points of interest related both to the root cause and to the response and great to be able to learn the lessons with no cost to life.

[OPENDOOR]

Are you suggesting that they shut down the wrong engine?

What a bizarre comment.

Unsure which engine is the problem, what's bizarre about that?

[Walnut]

My very strong hunch is this a/c suffered multiple bird strikes. No 1 was destroyed, No 2 was on fire but producing thrust, the ecam will tell you to shut down the engine on fire, fortunately the crew sat on their hands and kept it going. These crew deserve a medal, as a pilot in such a situation you head for the nearest airport, flying over a built up area is not even a consideration.
The guys talking about STN are talking tosh, it would have involved a downwind landing on R/w 05, wet, with a crippled a/c, I believe they had a brake fire so clearly some some of the systems were also u/s (brakes?), maybe slow flap extention.
Lets see what the QAR reveals.

[mog1098]

Buried in that Daily Mail article linked to on page 6 is this interesting comment, which if correct tends to support the unlatched cowling theory....

"Another passenger however has described how the casing of the left engine started to come away during take off and that the right engine exploded as the plane was coming into land.

He said: 'As the plane started to gather speed on the runway for take-off, the engine casing came loose and started flapping and at the point of take-off it snapped off with a loud bang".


Runways closed at Heathrow Airport after BA plane makes emergency landing | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330187/Runways-closed-Heathrow-Airport-BA-plane-makes-emergency-landing.html#ixzz2UDuaHXqn)

[BBK]

Flap 5

I believe you may be underestimating the workload with a diversion especially if one or both engines are giving cause for concern. The quickest option may be to return to base even if that isn't, strictly in terms of distance, the nearest option. The Boeing QRH (yes I know this is an Airbus) gives exactly that guidance.

Essentially, always look at the big picture and manage the situation accordingly. There may be competing elements eg a nearer unfamiliar diversion compared to a slightly further familiar one. Im NOT speculating regarding this particular incident though.

Of course, with the benefit of hindsight then one may sometimes realise another course of action may have been better and if that's what the TRE says in the sim debrief it must be true!

[drivez]

I don't think you would be thinking about other crews with perfectly serviceable aircraft having to reach into their bags to get out stanstead plates in this situation. Particularly when these crews would also have time to thoroughly brief the diversion.

[ManaAdaSystem]

My very strong hunch is this aircraft did not suffer any birdstrikes at all. you just have to look at the picture from the AirTran 320 that lost it's engine cowl, and compare it to todays BA. Same same.

[spet0789]

Walnut - I don't think anyone has suggested a downwind landing on 04 at STN.

That would have been a bad option. Though not as bad as an upwind landing on Clapham.

Thankfully the crew were able to pull off the best option and landed on a runway with ATC and full fire cover, for which major congratulations.

[doubtfire]

Imagine the loss of life had the aircraft lost all thrust and crashed in the middle of London as opposed to a green field near Stansted. I would think many questions would be asked of a decision to return to Heathrow.
Todays example does not necessarily apply as we do not know the exact details.
Safe outcome today but tomorrow....

[swish266]

Forget the birds!
If it happened 8-9 minutes after t/o, the a/c should have just reached FL100 and started acceleration. London TMA ATC procedures keep you lower than normal elsewhere.
Can't imagine birdstrikes that can cause that kind of damage at 10000'.
Most likely the cowl latch scenario.
IMHO.

[NigelOnDraft]

The crew would not need to know the Stansted ILS frequency. They could just enter EGSS and the runway in use as the alternate destination, accept radar vectors to the ILS, use the autopilot (with the rudder trimmed correctly on the A319) and fly the approach and landing. The database knows the ILS frequency and, if necessary, ATC knows it anyway.
Please let us know which airline you fly for, or hopefully none :ugh: We can then steer well clear. At the airline in question today, which I might even fly for, we tend, maybe rather unusually, to brief for an approach. Such a brief requires preparation, interaction and check of understanding. Not just select it in the box and watch the aircraft fly it :=

[BOAC]

My very strong hunch is this a/c suffered multiple bird strikes. No 1 was destroyed, No 2 was on fire but producing thrust, the ecam will tell you to shut down the engine on fire, fortunately the crew sat on their hands and kept it going. These crew deserve a medal, as a pilot in such a situation you head for the nearest airport, flying over a built up area is not even a consideration.
The guys talking about STN are talking tosh, it would have involved a downwind landing on R/w 05, wet, with a crippled a/c, I believe they had a brake fire so clearly some some of the systems were also u/s (brakes?), maybe slow flap extention. - marks out of 10?

[Dannyboy39]

24 mins airborne time and flying over one of the worlds most populated cities...

with LTN or STN very close.

Runway 8 was in use at Luton today and weather wasn't great at fairly high elevation. Over a populated town too.

[Edinburgher]

Not an aviation professional, but frequent flyer. Interested in what professionals make of this video. TAM A320, in Brazil May 2012 - plane was newly delivered, I believe. Obviously, if something similar did happen today with the BA A319 it was after rotation and well into the climb.

Video: Passenger Captures Engine Cover Shattering During Takeoff at NYCAviation (http://www.nycaviation.com/2012/05/video-passenger-captures-engine-cover-shattering-during-takeoff/#.UZ-HUMoQPKd)

[Seloco]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walnut
My very strong hunch is this a/c suffered multiple bird strikes. No 1 was destroyed, No 2 was on fire but producing thrust, the ecam will tell you to shut down the engine on fire, fortunately the crew sat on their hands and kept it going. These crew deserve a medal, as a pilot in such a situation you head for the nearest airport, flying over a built up area is not even a consideration.
The guys talking about STN are talking tosh, it would have involved a downwind landing on R/w 05, wet, with a crippled a/c, I believe they had a brake fire so clearly some some of the systems were also u/s (brakes?), maybe slow flap extention.

- marks out of 10?
About negative 2, I would think. For a start the no1 engine made a pretty good job of deploying its TR on landing considering it "was destroyed"..

[gcal]

I've heard some twaddle in my time and it is here in buckets on this thread.
Can we all just say well done to the flight crew and cabin crew and await the outcome of the AAIB report?

[4468]

Walnut

There may be some things I can agree with in your post. One that I definitely can agree with is the suggestion that ECAM will try to kill you in situations apparently similar to this one!!!

The presence of ECAM does little to reduce the amount of interpretation required. Sometimes it dramatically INCREASES it!!

[ManaAdaSystem]

I've heard some twaddle in my time and it is here in buckets on this thread.
Can we all just say well done to the flight crew and cabin crew and await the outcome of the AAIB report?

Well done to the cabin crew for a job well done!
Well done to the flight crew for getting the aircraft back on ground in one piece. As for the preflight inspection... Properly done and this thread would not be here. That is my opinion. And the video on previous page supports this.

I don't think BA will be handing out any medals for this flight, even if the local news says BA is blaming this on a technical failure.

[Sober Lark]

The comments would have been so different had it been one of O'Learys birds.

[Yaw String]

Guys,..debris trail can be taken into consideration..so don't shoot down guys who point this out.
Maybe, just take it into consideration,if you can, should it happen to you!

Also,..we have come to expect coverups from some Asian carriers..lets hope our flag carrier will quickly explain.....leaving us in no doubt,..the truth surely being known by now,as conjecture runs rife!

[ManaAdaSystem]

It wouldn't happen with a Boeing:p

[lomapaseo]

As for the preflight inspection... Properly done and this thread would not be here.

are air crew expected to get down on their knees to inspect for latches not done or is this purely a mainteance function performed by those who open and close cowls ?

[DaveReidUK]

Not an aviation professional, but frequent flyer. Interested in what professionals make of this video. TAM A320, in Brazil May 2012 - plane was newly delivered, I believe.http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/582479485.jpg?1337434387

CFM engined on this occasion.

I loved the quote from the original article:

This is what happens when you use an electronic device during takeoff: The engine cover breaks off and hurls itself into the side of your plane.They should show the video as part of every passenger safety briefing - might dissuade those in-flight mobile phone users who are stupid enough to believe it. :O

Obviously, if something similar did happen today with the BA A319 it was after rotation and well into the climb.Post #169 would suggest that at least one of the BA cowls was in fact lost on take-off, as with the TAM.

[Flap 5]

Please let us know which airline you fly for, or hopefully none :ugh: We can then steer well clear. At the airline in question today, which I might even fly for, we tend, maybe rather unusually, to brief for an approach. Such a brief requires preparation, interaction and check of understanding. Not just select it in the box and watch the aircraft fly it :=

I am sure you are correct if there is time. This aircraft appears to have suffered problems with both engines on climb out. That requires a rapid response to the problem not disimilar to the unextinguishable fire drill on take off which is done during the initial Airbus simulator training. I remember it well. The pretakeoff brief is very thorough and covers such eventualities as engine failure and subsequent actions.

[ILS27LEFT]

If the latches theory will be confirmed why Airbus does not consider adding a sensor to warn if latches are not locked, even the cheapest car has got these sensors on all doors nowadays, unlocked latches seem a frequent occurrence on this type and it could easily end up in tears. One pax saw case detaching on take off, no birds reported. Early speculation but birds seem not involved this time then it can be only latches left unlocked on both engines :O

[Captain Radar....]

If latch security is a known problem on this type would it be beyond the wit of safety system man to fit a 'Cowl Unlocked' indication system?
I feel sure there must be cabin/cargo door unlocked warnings..................at least I hope there are!
You can't even start a microwave oven if the door's not locked!
What price a wiring mod against a potential disaster?

[Agaricus bisporus]

I'd be interested to a hear credible theory on how unlatched cowls might cause engine failure and fire...
Perhaps those proposing this scenario could suggest a feasible way?

Or do they mean unlatched owls?

[Captain Radar....]

ILS27LEFT
Great minds think alike! Or someones going to come with a really good reason why they can't fit unlocked sensors!

[Hand Solo]

You don't need to be down on your knees, there's a ruddy great indicator you can see if they're not latched. Just bend over and have a look.

[Fargoo]

Any news if the cowls have been found yet? Typically they come off on rotation or shortly after take off if not all the latches are done up.

As for looking on a walkround, it's easily missed if one latch is done up and not the rest.

Airbus really need to concentrate on either a secondary locking system or some sort of indicator that is visible at eye level. The numbers of cowl loss alone shows this is a problem that needs to be engineered out to prevent it happening again.

Procedures and paperwork wont do it unless they are rigidly followed and still allow for human error.

[williekp]

Blame down the line but no senior management accountability. Tell as little of the truth publicly as possible.

[mog1098]

Agaricus Bisporus wrote: "I'd be interested to a hear credible theory on how unlatched cowls might cause engine failure and fire...
Perhaps those proposing this scenario could suggest a feasible way?"

How about the metal engine cowls becoming detached in the airflow and impacting at high velocity against pipes carrying fuel and oil, not to mention cutting through live wires?

[Captain Radar....]

You don't need to be down on your knees, there's a ruddy great indicator you can see if they're not latched. Just bend over and have a look.

True, but it seems that this check is somehow being missed, by pilots and personnel who have either closed the cowlings or those who are near them during engine start and see off.

We had manual wing unlocked indicators on the top of Phantom FGR2 wings. It wasn't even necessary to bend down to see them, at about eye height all you had to do was look across the top of the wing.
We lost an aircraft on take off when the wings folded. Pre flight groundcrew checks missed the ruddy great indicators. Pre flight aircrew walk round missed the ruddy great indicators. Start crew missed the ruddy great indicators even though they had to walk round running their fingers along the top of the wings feeling for boundry layer air within inches of the ruddy great things.
A cockpit warning caption would have saved us the loss an aircraft (assuming the crew didn't ignore it of course!)
They got out by the way, it could have been a lot worse. My point is that we often see what we want to see and don't see what we should.
There seems to be a problem with the current system, perhaps it should be revised.

Cost benefit of an electronic warning system? mmmmmmm

[SeenItAll]

Of course, these points all seem to be counted not significant for the substantial number of following aircraft which had to be subsequently diverted to Stansted, without seemingly any of the concerns above.

It would also have avoided the gross interruption to BA's business for the rest of the day.

At the risk of being flippant, not only would a diversion to Stansted have "avoided the gross interruption to BA's business for the rest of the day," it would also have had the (possibly salutary to BA) effect of mucking up the operations of competitors Easy and Ryanair for the rest of the day.

I'll get my coat now ...

[Yaw String]

And, would have beaten PIA B777, by a wide margin!
The anoraks would have been orgasmic!

[Krystal n chips]

Watching the BBC News at lunchtime, and the fearless reporter duly informed the world that, regarding aircraft safety, they can fly, land and.....take off.... on one engine.

True, if the aircraft has one engine that is. A minor detail I suppose.

And since when, or with which operator, has a duplicate inspection been required after routine oil replenishment?.

Back to the sensible comments.... and the pure speculation, always ans interesting combination after any incident.

[DaveReidUK]

I'd be interested to a hear credible theory on how unlatched cowls might cause engine failure and fire...Not quite as far-fetched as it sounds - that's more or less what happened to a Canadian A320 in 2000, though fortunately only to one of the engines on that occasion.

[wild goose]

Imagine if this had been a 787...:ooh:

[DrGitfinger]

German tabloid Bild has this photo (http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/notlandung/london-heathrow-landebahnen-gesperrt-flugzeug-evakuierung-30529454.bild.html) I hadn't seen before.
Bigger version here (http://bilder.bild.de/fotos-skaliert/notlandungeinbritishairwaysmaschineinlondon-_32594648_mbqf-1369398806-30537938/2,c=0,h=554.bild.jpeg).

The caption translates as:

"Engine on fire - emergency landing!"
"The Airbus shortly after take-off from Heathrow – flames can clearly be seen shooting out of the engine"

I'm only SLF, so what do I know, but I can't see any flames, just smoke. Do they mean the landing lights?
And the photo must have been taken shortly before landing.

[avoman]

Krystal, a duplicate inspection is indeed routine if oil has been replenished on more than one engine. Which is most days.
Oil caps have been left off engines before.
A duplicate inspection is required after any fan cowl disturbance on an Airbus narrowbody. At least in my company and I guess in most others. Multiple previous incidents being the reason.

[Alber Ratman]

I have seen one maintenance organisation that does have duplicate inspections on oil tank filler caps..

Maintenance error in BA.. Let us see if a Just Culture does exist.

[aeromech3]

If the ATC did advice the crew of a visual along the lines "LH engine cowl missing" then, as that engines fire protection would be invalid, the crew might have elected to shut it down, unaware that the RH engine would soon suffer a similar cowl loss!

[EGCA]

Passenger interviewed on the BBC News at six said that he saw an engine cowl start "flapping" as the aircraft gathered speed on take-off.

EGCA

[NigelOnDraft]

If the ATC did advice the crew of a visual along the lines "LH engine cowl missing" then, as that engines fire protection would be invalid, the crew might have elected to shut it downIs this a published procedure? I'm not sure any crew would shut an engine down on a 4 engine aircraft, let alone a twin, for lack of fire protection? Not sure you'd even divert? Willing to be corrected...

[Boeingchap]

The fan cowls are an un pressurised area , so no warning system is deemed necessary , maybe not from now on
A fairly simple modification to add a warning input from new prox sensors on the cowls
Both engine fan cowls unlatched is the most obvious cause , it must have been done pre flight - many reasons exist for gaining access to both engines , but on a turn round is unusual
A lack of manpower at a previous nightstop , and not enough hours left for a routine inspection often creates turnround/ transit maintenance
Easy to miss latches hanging down if under time pressure , the crew are time limited to make departures, the pushback crew are no longer engineers or mechanics , they used to be , and part of the pushback is to check for loose panels, fuel leaks etc - used to be part of pushback
Too much clock chasing and cost reduction ,this is the result , some operators have duplicate inspections on fan cowls , others do not .
It would be interesting to see the tech log entry for opening the fan cowls .......

[WhyByFlier]

At the bottom is a nice photo showing how the cowl latches will look in various open, closed and locked positions.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A00O0199 (http://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2000/a00o0199/a00o0199.asp)

[busTRE]

NOD - Another very good point. The ABN section has loss of fire warning/protection as a crew awareness only item so no DIV or shutdown would be necessary or wise.

Boeingchap - A latch sensor would be a 'simple modification'. You're knowledge of the A319 design must be extensive to know that there is already a spare wiring set there to carry the data and electrically supply such a system without a very expensive rewire through the engine, into the pylon and then onto the avionics bay to connect to the SDAC. I assume you know that this is all in place/easy to install or do you not have a clue what you're talking about.

[zorin]

Interesting thought about the return to LHR .
Almost all BA guys would naturally return to LHR , somewhere they know , maintainance , pax handling , car in carpark and so on . However .... how much better to lob into Stanstead ..... disrupt fewer passengers , cost only competitors and save £££Millions on LHR closure. Excellent fire service and reasonable passenger handling and possibly nearer.

You have to wonder about the commercial aspects!
( Yes I know ...Safety is our number one priority ...)

[Dimitris]

Can someone provide factual information on what is in general the SOP (if it varies) or manufacturer recommendation on an 'engine cowl release' while in flight? Does the engine have to shut down as precaution if there is no other indication of problem?

In plain words: On rotation cabin crew or tower informs the pilots that the cowl is off, is there a procedure that states 'shut engine immediately'? (I would doubt that, but I ask)

Can someone also explain what problems the cowl release creates? If no pipes/cables are shuttered and no impact on fuselage what is the aerodynamic/thermal effect on the engine/aircraft? I doubt there is any structural problem, small drag increase maybe (see below more questions if I may). Obviously there can be no certainty that all is OK, but does the cowl missing as a part create problem?

Does a missing cowl create any problem apart from aerodynamic inefficiency?
Someone mentioned earlier that missing cowl disrupts airflow and can lead to engine surge. Further explanation? Is that accurate?

(obviously non-pilot otherwise I would know what the SOPs are, if there are any, for cowl separation)

[doubtfire]

I would suggest to one poster on here that a double engine malfunction/issue and possible fire would allow the operating crew some latitude regarding a full landing brief and excursion from the Sop`s dictating as much.
The words in RED on the ecam saying LAND ASAP would be your guide to doing just that.
I`d rather land on a runway with some power and no brief, than glide into a field with no power, but with the satisfaction I`d fully briefed the airport/runway I didn`t make.

[bizdev]

While this may have nothing to do with this incident, there was an incident on another aircraft type a few years ago where the aircraft took off without the engine cowlings being latched. In this case the cowls did not detach but they did manage to puncture the main fuel inlet pipe to the high pressure fuel pump - causing a massive fuel leak which, thankfully, did not catch fire.

[Boeingchap]

A simple modification as in effect on weight and balance - nil , effect of electrical loading - nil , expensive parts required - no
Very often on most main wire looms manufacturers do indeed add spare wires , for the purpose of repairing damaged wires in a long run between connectors in awkward places - on the wiring diagrams hook up lists these are marked as "spare"
I guess after 35 years wiring up aircraft , I consider such a mod as easy compared to some I've installed as its only 3 wires at a maximum instead of the usual 500 or so and a few dozen relays and a whole host of hardware and stripping down the flight deck and E and E bay and pressure bulkheads and ( you get the picture I guess)
Ever seen an IFE fit/instal ? That's just to entertain the punters , fair bit in that too

[VCC]

How come we have not heard or seen photos of bits of engine in people's gardens. Could have been birds inside the airport fence shortly after v1. Looking at the route looks like a standard airborne return.

[SMD45]

I'm sorry dear sir a few points above me suggesting ole stansted would be the 'best' option.

What a stupid point. Have you ever been in a Position where both your engines are causing you problems?

I bet they were talking to LHR ATC at the time and entered the hold they were comfortable with on departure and flew into the airport next door without having to assess plates/frequency changes etc... The list goes on.

When both your engines are causing problems with one on fire do honestly think a well trained pilot will be thinking about the companies bottom line or saving everyone's lives? Next you're going to be asking why they didn't taxi off the runway?!

On the lack of info, but obvious events. Massive respect to the BA pilots

[CARR30]

The delusionary arrogance of this comment is positively breathtaking.

+1

If this had been a lo-cost imagine the hell that would be breaking loose on here!

[coffeewhiteone]

If its just the cowling that has come off and all indications are normal why would you shut an engine down producing thrust. Yes you may have a bit more drag but you'd have an even bigger problem with one engine shut down losing other ancillary systems in the process.

There isn't an SOP that would cover this as this would be an airmanship call. I haven't checked the engine cowl in the Config Deviation List (CDL) which details when you can fly with missing panels etc but I would imagine it would be a Nil Despatch item.

[Hotel Mode]

You have to wonder about the commercial aspects!
( Yes I know ...Safety is our number one priority ...)

Do you honestly think closing LHR on a holiday friday is BAs favoured commercial option?

[WhyByFlier]

Can someone provide factual information on what is in general the SOP (if it varies) or manufacturer recommendation on an 'engine cowl release' while in flight?

There is no written procedure or SOP.

Does the engine have to shut down as precaution if there is no other indication of problem?

Of course not.

Can someone also explain what problems the cowl release creates?

Probably not - it's not something that's simulated or trained and the effects are specific to the chance circumstances at the time. I suppose it depends how many latches were unlocked and thus what speed and body angle it happened at.

Someone mentioned earlier that missing cowl disrupts airflow and can lead to engine surge.

If one of the computers (ECU/EIU etc.) is whacked or damaged in the process or something goes down the engine then it might.

[RTM Boy]

Spoke to my usual E/Ss contact - he was told by his colleagues at the scene that there was no sign of any bird strike and that cowlings were seen to be lose as the A319 accelerated along the runway. Apparently they separated from the engines just after rotation. I've no futher info.

[Lone_Ranger]

Some here still wittering on about Birds after seeing the pictures and video?, good grief

[frequentflyer2]

I'm bracing myself already for the tirade I'm probably about to unleash, BUT, as a simple SLF I have to say if I was a passenger on an aircraft which suddenly experienced severe engine problems I would be much happier if the flight crew landed on the nearest available runway able to accommodate it. I would not feel very secure if they chose to turn away from the nearest available runway and fly me over densely populated urban areas with, lets face it, nowhere to go if the engine problems suddenly became even worse. I understand there are any number of procedures to be followed, but how could they be sure they were not going to experience a total power failure? Also, under what circumstances would they have chosen to land at either Luton or Stansted if this particular situation was not deemed serious enough to warrant doing so?

[racedo]

The comments would have been so different had it been one of O'Learys birds.

Sober

Yup just look at post 63 as an example.

[busTRE]

Its not a case of whether it was serious enough.

The crew will be balancing a wide range of potential risks, the risk of second failure or loss of power over built up area are just two of a great many. This crew decided (rightly in my view) that the best balance of ALL the potential risks lay in returning to LHR. One aspect or issue rarely dictates the entire process.

Hope that helps.

[rog747]

ff2

read back a few hundred posts over and you will see why both LTN and STN
were not chosen to divert too...

LTN had dirty wx, and app over large town...not the longest on runways either,


in 1967 a British Eagle Britannia took off from LAP (LHR) and one of its main LG
bogies got stuck and they could not retract the gear nor extend it again so she diverted to Manston and landed on a foam covered runway after burning up most of the fuel in a hold...poor old bird never flew again.

G-ANCG EMERGENCY LANDING MANSTON APRIL 20th 1967 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/bSjip32nehY)


in 1968 was BOAC 707-465 G-ARWE (EX EAGLE BTW) had an engine fire after t/o and returned immediately to LAP on now long gone runway 05

[newfoundglory]

The BBC interviewed a passenger who confirmed the cowling was lost on takeoff as the plane rotated...

[overthewing]

One photo showed a slide coming down from the back of the port wing. Having recently been on a BA safety training course, I didn't think such a slide existed?

And was it really wise to use those overwing exits when the engines were in such a state? Even if neither was on fire after landing, would the mess of hot exposed metal in the presence of fuel not be a potential fire risk?

[RTM Boy]

I'm assuming that since according to ITN the crew were advised of the separation of the cowls from the engines by ATC (seen by the CT) immediately after rotation, the natural option would be to return to LHR immediately, which presumably would have been agreed with ATC if no other problems were apparent that would otherwise have necessitated diversion to LTN or STN.

So, I see no issue with returning to LHR.

Of course, if it had not made it, then you can imagine what would have followed in the media. Thank heavens all were safe and sound.

[rog747]

all narrowbody airbus a320 family have chutes rearward from over wing exits...

boeing 737 all versions do not,

757-300 does

[busTRE]

The 319 does indeed have such an overwing exit with a slide unfolding over the trailing edge. The 320 has 2 such exits on each side.

The slides come down inboard of the engine and are usually well clear of the hot metal. A passengers natural momentum would carry them well away to the rear, also the evacuation would normally start only once the engine was shut down.

The BA 318 does NOT have an overwing exit.

[rog747]

ff2

read back a few hundred posts over and you will see why both LTN and STN
were not chosen to divert too...

LTN had dirty wx, and app over large town...not the longest on runways either,


in 1967 a British Eagle Britannia took off from LAP (LHR) and one of its main LG
bogies got stuck and they could not retract the gear nor extend it again so she diverted to Manston and landed on a foam covered runway after burning up most of the fuel in a hold...poor old bird never flew again.

G-ANCG EMERGENCY LANDING MANSTON APRIL 20th 1967 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/bSjip32nehY)

that is one of the only LHR diverts i can remember on a full emergency...
and VS a340 in 1997.

oh i wish to add BMA 737 kegworth did divert to EMA

also in 1968 was BOAC 707-465 G-ARWE (EX EAGLE BTW) had an engine fire after t/o and returned immediately to LAP on now long gone runway 05

[overthewing]

boeing 737 all versions do not,

Ah, that explains it. The training course used a 737 cabin.

How does the slide get released, given that it has to go sideways and not just downwards under gravity?

[busTRE]

The slide is inflated by a near explosive influx of air. It thus quickly assumes its natural inflated shape which is effectively an L shape which follows the side of the fuselage and down the back of the wing, gravity plays little part in the shaping. Worth noting that the airbus off wing slides can be used in any flap config whereas some older designs can only be used with flaps fully extended.

[coopervane]

"The flight crew's handling of the incident certainly seems adequate, but what's with this blind and automatic praise of BA? If the fan cowl latches were not secured — and that is a big if at this point — is that also what you pay for when you fly BA?" Quote from Rick Studder

Adequate? Crews train in the Sim for all emergencies but a sim is a sim.
Having been a crew member in a flight deck with a real emergency there are factors that a simulator can never recreate.

Human factors. We all have different levels of fear and performance under pressure.

Any crew who maintain a level if calm whilst carrying out their drills in a real situation is far more than adequate.

Praise at the highest level is due indeed for all on board.
Aircraft safe back on the ground without loss of life or injury?
How can you better that?

As for speculation regarding BA's maintenance?

Let the AAIB do their job before pointing any fingers.

BA has demonstrated on this occasion and in the last major incident with Boeing 777 MMM what a well trained and safe airline they are.

Not just Flight Deck but to the professional way the cabin crews kept passengers calm during the events.

Simulators don't have passengers on board to add to the equation.

I think all involved should get the credit they deserve.

[ManaAdaSystem]

How you can better that????

Make sure the aircraft is serviceable before takeoff!

[busTRE]

Make sure the aircraft is serviceable before takeoff!

And at this stage you already know that it wasn't? Wow, a psychic pilot, what will they think of next!

[rog747]

the eagle manston diversion....

http://britisheagle.net/pictures/G-ANCG%20crash%202.jpg

[NigelOnDraft]

I'm assuming that since according to ITN the crew were advised of the separation of the cowls from the engines by ATC (seen by the CT) immediately after rotation, the natural option would be to return to LHR immediately, which presumably would have been agreed with ATC if no other problems were apparent that would otherwise have necessitated diversion to LTN or STNOf course you'd go to LHR - no point in going to LTN if your cowlings are at LHR :D

To all considering the time aspect, very rarely, even Red LAND ASAP, is an all out attempt made to get on the ground as soon as physically possible. The only possible exception is a confirmed, unextinqushed, engine Fire. In the event you do want to get on the ground ASAP, 99% of the time it will be the briefed return to the departure airfield. Only exception I can think of is AWOPS when you have a pre-briefed TO Altn.

We will have to await what happened here, and when. But if (and it is a big if) all cowls came off on TO, and the aircraft was flying fine, there would seem no urgency given a static situation and the rather too frequent times this has happened before. The interesting aspect will be what/why then happened to #2?

[Wisden Wonder]

I have read some rubbish on these pages of PPRune but never as biased as this one. How far up BA's bum do you need to be, how all and sundry think everyone did a wonderful job etc.etc. My 20000hrs experience says that when I loose an engine cowling I check all engine parameters, and then, dump fuel, if required, and land at the nearest suitable airport. Nowhere in my thinking do I take my customers for a ride around the Southern English countryside, and then return to base. Lets wait for the subsequent inquiry, available to the public, because there needs to be one, a lot of people were very lucky today.

[biscuit74]

Hmm. Lots of speculation, few clear facts yet. It does sound depressingly plausible that the cowls may not have been properly latched.
If so, that is surely a maintenance error, but also a crew failing - inadequate preflight check.
I find it interesting that several folk have immediately opted for an electronic warning system. Now why should that work better than using your eyeballs? Plenty aircraft have come to grief despite warning systems shouting out to the crew! Admittedly a back up for the lazy or busy day helps, just in case. And the possible impact of management pressures for efficiency does need to be thought about - how often is it?.

Luckily this aircraft didn't come to grief - and this crew and many of their colleagues, at least the ones who read incident and accident reports thoroughly, will not make that error again, if their error it was.
Go on - guess how I know? Yep, been there, have made that particular classic boob. Flying around to land while hoping the cowl won't come off fully and take part or all of the tail with it certainly concentrates the mind. There but for fortune...

(And on the little aircraft I fly now I have dayglo stripes to show me that crirical bolts are as they should be !)

[lomapaseo]

Aviate

Navigate

Communicate

radio calls about what parts you might have left on the ground are much lower in decision making priority.

What symptoms are apparant should take priority the rest is could-ofs. might-ofs etc.

[PAXboy]

DaveReidUK
And, unlike Vnukovo last week, not a piece of hand baggage in sight.

Not so. The item of home video shown on the Italian website (linked in post #75 by ILS27LEFT) shows hand luggage.

Despite the very jerky movement of the camera, I could see a handbag, a duty free bag and wheeled cabin bag and more. Pax are Pax.

[DaveReidUK]

The item of home video shown on the Italian website shows hand luggage.Yes, I was wrong about that. :\

I also wrote in the same post that AFAIK there had been no reports of injuries, which was true at the time of writing, but I see the BBC are now saying that 3 people were treated for minor injuries.

[Flap 80]

Widen wonder and others....seem to be numerous armchair experts on this thread with little knowledge of what has to be done w.r.t time management to reposition to a safe landing....and we are probably not talking about an incident of 707 WE seriousness here......WW considers dumping fuel yet appears to criticise the BA crew for their tour of Southern England lasting just 27 minutes....how long would WW consider remaining airborne to dump fuel? And would that really be a good idea with an engine on fire...is he aware no jettison facility on the 319?....if indeed a fire warning was received....it may be that the loss of insecure cowlings suppressed any fire warning which dont forget are only heat detectors....little point commenting on how many hours someone may have with obviously no Airbus knowledge and therefore no appreciation of how complex the ECAM drill can be.....if indeed any were requested...remember the QF A380 ECAM?.Seems to be just plain old anti BA angry rhetoric....good job by the crew btw.:ok:

[Megaton]

Thanks Flap80. I posted a reply to Wisden but it was far more vitriolic than your more measured response. Your are absolutely correct though. Presumably they took a ride round the English countryside because they were looking for the fuel jettison switches!!! :ugh:

[coffeewhiteone]

Nowhere in my thinking do I take my customers for a ride around the Southern English countryside, and then return to base.

:ugh: Really? Airborne for 26 mins. Flew the SID. Straight to LAM. Quick 180 and then a straight in return. 20000hrs you may have. However, aircraft have been lost despite only having minor technical problems due to undue rushing and panic. I'd have to agree with the rhetoric comment from Flap 80 above.

[TURIN]

Krystal, a duplicate inspection is indeed routine if oil has been replenished on more than one engine. Which is most days.
Oil caps have been left off engines before.


Not everywhere.

'ETOPS Maintained' requires different persons or different methods (EG hand pump or gravity fill) on each engine. Some operators/regulators require separate signatures in the log, others pay lip service to 'best practice'.

If UK registered A320s or B737s requires a duplicate inspection after oil servicing then I am seriously out of compliance. :eek:

One photo showed a slide coming down from the back of the port wing. Having recently been on a BA safety training course, I didn't think such a slide existed?

And was it really wise to use those overwing exits when the engines were in such a state? Even if neither was on fire after landing, would the mess of hot exposed metal in the presence of fuel not be a potential fire risk?

Erm, what hot exposed metal? The fan cowl covers the accessories on the fan case. They don't get that hot.

[overthewing]

Erm, what hot exposed metal? The fan cowl covers the accessories on the fan case. They don't get that hot.

Thanks, I didn't know that. As a passenger sat in my favourite seat, I don't think I'd have taken the risk - I'd be worried about hot engine / sparks / uncontained fuel vapour. Not being an engineer, seems reasonable to me!

[Rimmer]

What odd comments here....

I work with the airbus every day, there is not jettison system and never will be, with the fan cowls gone they have likely damaged the engine ( as they did for the right one given the fuel or hydraulic trail ) you land ASAP, with the cowls gone the fire bottles are useless and there is a very good chance they have damaged something departing the engine.

Spare a thought please as there will be one or more guys in engineering feeling very sick tonight..

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I think we really have to wait for the investigation on this one.

Note the following points from the report kindly posted by WhyByFlier (#203)


Eighty per cent of the Airbus latches inspected were found to be below the manufacturer's specified minimum latch tension.
Retention springs were observed to be broken or missing on several latch assemblies.
In some installations, the handle latch pins were found broken. This appeared to be due to improper assembly and installation.

So the groundcrew and aircrew may have carried out their checks competently.


I've had a intake panel come loose shortly after takeoff - flapping around like crazy but fortunately didn't detach.

Flew min. speed, had the benefit of a visual inspection from a certain England rugby player (thanks mate!) I was due to play with, and landed back at base (nearest) in about 7 mins.
Turned out to be worn engagement catches - not my or the groundcrew's fault. Everything looked secured but wasn't. I think the servicing schedule was changed to minimise the opening of that panel, which the designers had not intended to be opened that often.

p.s. Land ASAP needs to be balanced with Know Your Aircraft. I have done quite enough sim.instruction, and a real accident investigation caused by 'rushing it', to know that you are better off sometimes knowing the drills are complete than chucking the aircraft down on the nearest piece of concrete. I vote we give the crew the benefit of the doubt on the Stansted/LHR decision.

[F900 Ex]

Some operators/regulators require separate signatures in the log, others pay lip service to 'best practice'.



Spare a thought please as there will be one or more guys in engineering feeling very sick tonight..


I would suggest best practice starts with a good pre-flight and post flight inspection by the person signing the tech log prior to flight !

That's the managements and lawyers get out clause 1

[Rimmer]

Fox

All due respect but this is not a tension issue with both engines that kind of coincidence just doesn't happen they were not latched ( sadly to have to say being a serving engineer )

The v2500 fan cowl issue is well known to us all and various modifications have been done to alleviate it, the real big issue with the v2500 is if you latch the pawl back to the latch after you open it then it hangs by gravity horizontal giving the impression of being engaged or latched, other engines would obviously hang down at that point,the only way to check and you can is to go and try pulling the cowl open.

Will be interesting but as my last post there will be guys worried sick tonight that worked on that airbus last night.

[Basil]

Well, Prune is no longer - has it ever been? - a professional pilot network so can we complain when every MS and his dog think they can fly a swept wing jet? Most of them think the 'swept wing' makes it more 'streamlined'.
I would seriously counsel journos against taking anything on here seriously. Don't do it guys. The airline will sue you. Well, I would if I were an airline CEO.
If you want professional guidance, employ someone like me, who has driven trucks, buses, ships, aeroplanes (mil & civil inc BIG, foreign, dodgy etc), but, of course, you won't find many with that sort of background. If you want to pay a lot, I may be available, but it will be on a 'work from pooter anywhere in the world' basis.
My advice would be from top rate contacts whom I would pay - at your expense. Accuracy and professional advice does not come cheap.
You will not find it on PPRuNe.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Rimmer Thanks for that.
Well, there were quite enough panels on assorted HM aircraft that benefitted from a quick 'slap' to determine integrity. Would that help here?

Mind you, I remember hearing the following on the ground radio in the sign in/out hut.
Instie in cockpit: "TVTab 2 is out of focus"
Desk Sarge: "Give it a tap. How's it now?"
Instie:"Back in focus!......but I bust the screen"

[TURIN]

I would suggest best practice starts with a good pre-flight and post flight inspection by the person signing the tech log prior to flight !

That's the managements and lawyers get out clause 1

My comment refers to the requirements of the regulators. Best practice is to ensure that if it is a requirement to have different persons carrying out similar tasks (such as engine oil servicing or checking that the fan cowls are latched) then make it mandatory to certify the tech log as such.

Some operators just put it in the small print as a 'nice to do'.

I have to agree with Rimmer (I never thought I would say that again). Some very worried people around LHR tonight. There for the grace of...etc. :(