BA 744 emergency landing in Sydney

[Cyclic Hotline]

BA jumbo makes emergency landing

SYDNEY (Reuters) - The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is examining a British Airways jumbo jet which made a forced emergency landing at Sydney airport on Friday night due to engine trouble.

BA flight 10, a Boeing 747-400 bound for London, returned to Sydney on Friday night after experiencing engine trouble soon after takeoff, a spokesman for Sydney Airport said.

The plane landed safely at around 8 p.m. British time, he told Reuters. There were no injuries and passengers were accommodated at a Sydney hotel overnight.

The incident was being treated seriously, Peter Saint, spokesman for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, told Reuters.

"I would be suggesting it is a serious incident," he said.

Saint said he had heard reports of one engine breaking up, although this could not be confirmed until after the investigation.

ABC radio on Saturday morning quoted crew as saying that vibrations were felt through the jumbo's airframe not long after takeoff.

British Airways Sydney office could not be contacted on Saturday for details of the number of passengers on board or for arrangements for their onward travel.

Saint said the Australian Air Safety Bureau's investigation would involve stripping the engine, and could take three to six months to complete.

If a significant problem was found, a preliminary report could be produced in week or so, he added.

[silverhawk]

if , and i say if all of this is correct, does a landing involving 75% of available power constitute an emergency landing?. .Surely even at mtow,ops sorry mtom, not even a mighty BA 744 needs 75% power to manage an approach and landing

[PaperTiger]

Well obviously an emergency to yer average journo (shock, horror and all that). Post on a spotter (gasp !) board reports a spare donk already en route, so apparently not a big deal.

[Al Weaver]

Previous pucker factor quotient for this type of engine failure has been associated with the windmilling engine response to the unbalance. There has been a couple of examples of this with the Cathay engines and fan blade failures out of LAX and I believe HKG.

The initial vibes are not that strong but as you slow down for approach speed they can build up to the point where it's damm uncomforatble for all aboard. Not a big deal structurally but the discomfort factor is high nevertheless.

[Roobarb]

“Horror at 30000 feet. Death jet in nightmare plunge, thousands almost killed. My night of passion with handsome Captain. Sexy Bev Maker, 23, spills all in kiss and tell.”

I’m glad everyone was safely delivered. Yet another demonstration of the value of highly trained professional aircrew to Uncle Rod.

http://www.sausagenet.freeserve.co.uk/roobarb/roobarb_laugh.jpg

[NigelOnDraft]

More rumour...

Naturally I stand to be corrected, but I think there is a bit more to this than has been said... This passed to me from someone who today spoke to BA Ops in person:

1 Eng uncontained failure by Fan Blade, punctured fuselage.. .A 2nd Eng "causing problems", but produced "some" thrust.

Aircraft impounded awaiting investigation by Oz authorities...

Suspect it will not be as simple as fitting the "engine on its way from LHR" if the above is true...

However, no sign of this on any news sites etc., so maybe an overdramatic description?

NoD

[320DRIVER]

Although it is true that in general, journos tend to exagerate on reports the reverse may also happen as no airline likes to advertise its mishaps. I'm sure the PR persons will tend to minimise any event (unless blatantly obvious) even if to us on the line it may be more than your standard sector.

[Zulu]

Well the journos on London radio said "The plane limped back to the airport".. .Now, people limp, dogs limp and part of my body on Friday night limps, but have you ever seen an airplane limp?. . <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[747FOCAL]

I assume by limp they meant fly below 10,000 FT..... How far out where they? Glad they made it back. Any word on PAX or crew injuries from engine parts?

[PaperTiger]

Hmmm. Some different severity assessments it seems. NBD according to <a href="http://news.airwise.com/stories/2002/03/1015059012.html" target="_blank">Airwise</a>.. .I would have expected a UEF/fuse. penetration to have been big news, but still nothing on BBC or ABC ?

[gofer]

Zulu, even aircraft limp. Believe me, I've been in more than one in that state,.. .. .The worst was a BAC 1-11, belnging to BA actually. It lost all power from the starboard engine on rotation at BSL/MLH/EAP - oh boy did we limp into the air - limp over the houses - we limped past the hospital on the hill and then limped some more to dump fuel, check out the problem and the cause and a solution. A rear starboard tire blew and ejected bits into the starboard engine that then expired in a GTC (Glorious Technicolour Chunder).. .. .Am told it wasn't the only 1-11 to try feeding the engines this way - but it sure was spectacular though it never made the big time news. . .. .The solution was a perfect slow landing on the port gear with the starboard and nose gear put down in what seemed to be unison. Training and simulation work always pays off.. . . . <small>[ 03 March 2002, 06:51: Message edited by: gofer ]</small>

[lamer]

<a href="http://www.aviationpics.de/tech/tech.htm" target="_blank">OZ Engine Trouble</a> . .. .Regards

[stagger]

Just had a look at the pictures that Lamer posted a link to and I was wondering - what is the definition of "uncontained"? Does contained mean totally contained or mostly contained?. .. . <img src="http://www.aviationpics.de/tech/oz/oz03.jpg" alt="" /> . .. . <img src="http://www.aviationpics.de/tech/oz/oz02.jpg" alt="" /> . .. . <a href="http://www.aviationpics.de/tech/oz/page_01.htm" target="_blank">The other photos are here...</a>. . . . <small>[ 03 March 2002, 14:02: Message edited by: stagger ]</small>

[NigelOnDraft]

IMHO that counts as uncontained!. .. .I believe debris ejected out of the front, or even rear of the engine is to be expected, but Blades coming out of the side, after making a hole, are what certification wants to avoid for secondary damage reasons (as here, or worse, affecting another engine).. .. .NoD

[RatherBeFlying]

A number of fortunate items, especially compared to Sioux City:. . </font><ul type="square"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">"Only" one blade lost </font></li> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Remaining fan blades stayed attached </font></li> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">No systems reported lost (so far) </font></li> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">No injuries </font></li>[/list]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Improved design or just dumb luck that nothing vital was in the way?. .Needless to say, throwing a blade is serious -- it could have been far worse. Possibly the errant blade can be recovered from its impact site for examination.

[Al Weaver]

Rather be flying. .. .A number of fortunate items, especially compared to Sioux City:. .. . "Only" one blade lost . . Remaining fan blades stayed attached . . No systems reported lost (so far) . . No injuries . .. . Improved design or just dumb luck that nothing vital was in the way?. . Needless to say, throwing a blade is serious -- it could have been far worse. Possibly the errant blade can be recovered from its impact site for. . examination. . .. .___________________________________________________________ _________. .. .Concur. The design of the aircraft has to consider the release of a piece of blade (outer panel section) in either a forward or aft trajectory (up to 15 deg). The aircraft design includes the inlet cowl and holes, as shown here, are typical for a fan blade release ricochet off the engine containment structure. During this process the blade typically breaks up and the largest piece goes aft and sticks in a case behind the fan while a smaller piece (5-7lbs) goes forward and and oftenr through the inlet in a predictable trajectory. . .. .The damage shown is certainly anticipated and since no other systems were involved the level of hazard is only at a minor level compared to a serious hazard where another system would be involved and of course there were no injuries.. .. .There is no dumb luck to this. It is predictable and considered in the design of the aircraft. It's as predictable as the pilots returning the aircraft safely for landing <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[AhhhVC813]

Gofer. Small point, but the Bac 1-11 does (did) not have fuel jettison capability.

[kfw]

Gofer you don't have the whole story on the 1-11 incident hence not all of your comments are srictly accurate . I would not normally mention this but you did give the impression in your post that you were an expert on limping.

[DarkStar]

Alledged rumour is that No.2 Eng carried a blade from a batch of fanblades known to have a 'production problem' but within allowable tolerance. I would imagine this incident will cause a swift review. A/c will be in the sheds for over a week to allow permenant repairs.

[silverhawk]

1