Another fine piece of journalism (CX IFES)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another fine piece of journalism (CX IFES)
On the London Evening Standard website today:
-----------------------------------------------
Passengers today told how they feared they were going to die when an engine on their aircraft burst into a huge ball of flames.
The Cathay Pacific flight from Heathrow to Hong Kong turned round four hours into the flight and landed back in London today.
Passenger Dr Robin Singh, who was overlooking the wing, said: "It was a 20ft ball of flame. The wing caught fire and then it was coming towards the window. People-started screaming. I thought 'this is it' as it was reaching the window - I thought it was going to engulf the plane."
By the time flight CX250, with 322 passengers on board, touched down, the flames had subsided. Dr Singh, of the University of Middlesex Hospital in Isleworth, said: "When the fire started, we were asking the cabin crew what was happening, and they said they didn't know."
Passengers were finally told the plane was being re-routed, but to their amazement realised it would not be landing at the nearest airport. Dr Singh said: "We were flying over Russia, but they said we were going back to London, four hours away. When I asked why, they said it was because the service centre was there." A spokesman for Cathay Pacific confirmed one of the engines had been in trouble.
He said: "The reason the pilot came back to London was because there were three working engines and at no time was the safety of the passengers or staff in danger."
Passengers were put up in a hotel, where they were today awaiting replacement flights.
------------------------------------
I presume the real story is a bit less sensational - anyone in a position to provide it?
-----------------------------------------------
Passengers today told how they feared they were going to die when an engine on their aircraft burst into a huge ball of flames.
The Cathay Pacific flight from Heathrow to Hong Kong turned round four hours into the flight and landed back in London today.
Passenger Dr Robin Singh, who was overlooking the wing, said: "It was a 20ft ball of flame. The wing caught fire and then it was coming towards the window. People-started screaming. I thought 'this is it' as it was reaching the window - I thought it was going to engulf the plane."
By the time flight CX250, with 322 passengers on board, touched down, the flames had subsided. Dr Singh, of the University of Middlesex Hospital in Isleworth, said: "When the fire started, we were asking the cabin crew what was happening, and they said they didn't know."
Passengers were finally told the plane was being re-routed, but to their amazement realised it would not be landing at the nearest airport. Dr Singh said: "We were flying over Russia, but they said we were going back to London, four hours away. When I asked why, they said it was because the service centre was there." A spokesman for Cathay Pacific confirmed one of the engines had been in trouble.
He said: "The reason the pilot came back to London was because there were three working engines and at no time was the safety of the passengers or staff in danger."
Passengers were put up in a hotel, where they were today awaiting replacement flights.
------------------------------------
I presume the real story is a bit less sensational - anyone in a position to provide it?
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First reported here on PPRuNe by stickyb on the EAAC's 747 operation with 3 engines thread.
Shows the journalists up for what they are. 
Ironic isn't it. I just caught up with reading some threads, this one included, before setting out to go LHR HKG on CX250 last night (as slf)
Snoozing away NE of Moscow some 3 hours into the flight when the captain apologises for the flames that some people have seen, no2 is shut down, and we're turing back to LHR. 4hours later, coming back lower and slower, and we land at 2am!
Must say though, just in case any journos are reading, that the whole thing seemed extremely professionally handled, with absolutely no panic amongst the pax. Just some moans about being late for meetings!
Snoozing away NE of Moscow some 3 hours into the flight when the captain apologises for the flames that some people have seen, no2 is shut down, and we're turing back to LHR. 4hours later, coming back lower and slower, and we land at 2am!
Must say though, just in case any journos are reading, that the whole thing seemed extremely professionally handled, with absolutely no panic amongst the pax. Just some moans about being late for meetings!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLFguy...of course they would..
I have read a number of these "yawn-yawn" comments on PPrune over the years and wondered how many people have actually been in the BACK of an a/c when something goes wrong.
Over twenty years I have had one (partial) engine failure in my little spam-can. I have also experienced a complete "let-go" (bangs,flames,shaking etc for the non-technical.) in an MD Something-or-other coming out of Larnaca a few years back. Both, obviously, landed safely.
My little engine failure hardly raised an eyebrow on my cool, collected brow. However, I can assure you that for 30mins or so there were no Atheists flying in the back of that a/c in Larnaca...cabin crew included....!
I have read a number of these "yawn-yawn" comments on PPrune over the years and wondered how many people have actually been in the BACK of an a/c when something goes wrong.
Over twenty years I have had one (partial) engine failure in my little spam-can. I have also experienced a complete "let-go" (bangs,flames,shaking etc for the non-technical.) in an MD Something-or-other coming out of Larnaca a few years back. Both, obviously, landed safely.
My little engine failure hardly raised an eyebrow on my cool, collected brow. However, I can assure you that for 30mins or so there were no Atheists flying in the back of that a/c in Larnaca...cabin crew included....!
To an 'SLF' myself included (and I fly - oh......50 odd times a year) anything 'unusal' makes us sit up and take note.
Now if something happened to me on a flight with all my experience of being an SLF I'd probably take the proffessionalism of the crew as an indication we were OK.
Now imagine you've been on a plane at most a couple of times.
If it does something 'weird' nevermind an engine has to be shut down you frankly feel scared to death. You haven't a clue what planes can and can't do. You don't know what crew can & can't cope with and you don't know if that 'noise' was mild turbulence or a wing falling off.
Well those people...that's most of your SLF and if all is well they'll just moan they can't get an extra glass of wine. But if something strange happens they are the people that the journos get to talk to.
And if you are an SLF and something untoward seems to happening to the flight - trust me - silly or not the SLF get scared damn quick.
When I first started flying (as an SLF) I had two experiences I recall:-
On one we hit some turbulence. No doubt to the crew it was very normal. But to me and my friends it was an unknown, scary, exciting and after a while it was a real worry. No one said anything - it was probably a non event but to us it was not a nice place to be.
On a second we were on Swiss Air. We hit some turbulence. We were going all over the shop. The pilot came on the PA, explained what turbulence was, why it was happening and what he would do to try to improve the ride.
We sat back, laughed and considered ordering more whiskey.
SLF are stupid. But we are your customers. Just tell us what is going on and honestly; we will try to understand.
Now if something happened to me on a flight with all my experience of being an SLF I'd probably take the proffessionalism of the crew as an indication we were OK.
Now imagine you've been on a plane at most a couple of times.
If it does something 'weird' nevermind an engine has to be shut down you frankly feel scared to death. You haven't a clue what planes can and can't do. You don't know what crew can & can't cope with and you don't know if that 'noise' was mild turbulence or a wing falling off.
Well those people...that's most of your SLF and if all is well they'll just moan they can't get an extra glass of wine. But if something strange happens they are the people that the journos get to talk to.
And if you are an SLF and something untoward seems to happening to the flight - trust me - silly or not the SLF get scared damn quick.
When I first started flying (as an SLF) I had two experiences I recall:-
On one we hit some turbulence. No doubt to the crew it was very normal. But to me and my friends it was an unknown, scary, exciting and after a while it was a real worry. No one said anything - it was probably a non event but to us it was not a nice place to be.
On a second we were on Swiss Air. We hit some turbulence. We were going all over the shop. The pilot came on the PA, explained what turbulence was, why it was happening and what he would do to try to improve the ride.
We sat back, laughed and considered ordering more whiskey.
SLF are stupid. But we are your customers. Just tell us what is going on and honestly; we will try to understand.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
[b]Load Toad; {/b]Now imagine you've been on a plane at most a couple of times.
If it does something 'weird' nevermind an engine has to be shut down you frankly feel scared to death. You haven't a clue what planes can and can't do. You don't know what crew can & can't cope with and you don't know if that 'noise' was mild turbulence or a wing falling off.
Well those people...that's most of your SLF and if all is well they'll just moan they can't get an extra glass of wine. But if something strange happens they are the people that the journos get to talk to.
And if you are an SLF and something untoward seems to happening to the flight - trust me - silly or not the SLF get scared damn quick.
If it does something 'weird' nevermind an engine has to be shut down you frankly feel scared to death. You haven't a clue what planes can and can't do. You don't know what crew can & can't cope with and you don't know if that 'noise' was mild turbulence or a wing falling off.
Well those people...that's most of your SLF and if all is well they'll just moan they can't get an extra glass of wine. But if something strange happens they are the people that the journos get to talk to.
And if you are an SLF and something untoward seems to happening to the flight - trust me - silly or not the SLF get scared damn quick.
The fact that these journos neverthless (a) lap it up and then (b) regurgitate it just goes to demonstrate how few of those adjectives are being honoured by those sections of the media.
And that, I think, is the gravamen of the repeated complaint here on PPRuNe - which I, as another non-pilot non-aviation industry SLF, share 100%.
Still behind the curtain
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking about journos, editors and newspaper style, take a look below and see what a non-tabloid respectable newspaper like the Los Angeles Times did with a nearly identical story just a few days ago.
Pitty Cathay Pacific, though. Second engine loss in a week.
---
November 11, 2004
Jet Returns to LAX After Engine Fails
Half an hour after takeoff, the plane lands safely. Those aboard are rerouted.
By Wendy Thermos, Times Staff Writer
More than 300 stranded passengers were being rerouted Wednesday while officials investigated why an engine on a Hong Kong-bound jumbo jet failed during takeoff the night before at Los Angeles International Airport, forcing an emergency landing.
Several people on the ground saw sparks and flames shooting from one of the four engines of the Cathay Pacific Boeing B-747-400 as it departed at 10:52 p.m. Tuesday. The plane landed safely back at LAX half an hour later.
Preliminary evidence suggested a blade failure in the engine, Cathay spokeswoman Frances Horner said Wednesday. "With sparks coming out, it looks pretty spectacular at night," she said.
The flight was canceled and passengers were sent to local hotels. About 100 were placed on other flights Wednesday morning, with the rest scheduled to leave last night and today, Horner said.
Cathay Pacific Airways officials are working with Rolls-Royce, the engine manufacturer, to determine why the engine failed. The Federal Aviation Administration was immediately alerted.
The pilot learned of the problem from an instrument indicator, shut down the engine, informed passengers of the situation and told them of the plan to return to the airport, Horner said. The planes are designed to fly on three engines if necessary.
Before approaching, the pilot dumped fuel over the ocean so the plane would be light enough to meet weight requirements for landing.
Pitty Cathay Pacific, though. Second engine loss in a week.
---
November 11, 2004
Jet Returns to LAX After Engine Fails
Half an hour after takeoff, the plane lands safely. Those aboard are rerouted.
By Wendy Thermos, Times Staff Writer
More than 300 stranded passengers were being rerouted Wednesday while officials investigated why an engine on a Hong Kong-bound jumbo jet failed during takeoff the night before at Los Angeles International Airport, forcing an emergency landing.
Several people on the ground saw sparks and flames shooting from one of the four engines of the Cathay Pacific Boeing B-747-400 as it departed at 10:52 p.m. Tuesday. The plane landed safely back at LAX half an hour later.
Preliminary evidence suggested a blade failure in the engine, Cathay spokeswoman Frances Horner said Wednesday. "With sparks coming out, it looks pretty spectacular at night," she said.
The flight was canceled and passengers were sent to local hotels. About 100 were placed on other flights Wednesday morning, with the rest scheduled to leave last night and today, Horner said.
Cathay Pacific Airways officials are working with Rolls-Royce, the engine manufacturer, to determine why the engine failed. The Federal Aviation Administration was immediately alerted.
The pilot learned of the problem from an instrument indicator, shut down the engine, informed passengers of the situation and told them of the plan to return to the airport, Horner said. The planes are designed to fly on three engines if necessary.
Before approaching, the pilot dumped fuel over the ocean so the plane would be light enough to meet weight requirements for landing.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously well researched story...
That will be the West Middlesex University Hospital then.. if they can't even get the details from a "witness" right.....
Dr Singh, of the University of Middlesex Hospital in Isleworth,
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That will be the West Middlesex University Hospital then.. if they can't even get the details from a "witness" right.....
Thank you class and next week we'll be looking at punctuation.
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hhmmm! NE of Moscow 3 hrs into the flight, that must have been a step climb then. Throttle up.. sudden rise in N3 vibs retard t/l to idle...throttle up again and Bang!! one HP turbine blade departs company.
Big deal
I wonder what standard of HPT blade C/X use?
Big deal
I wonder what standard of HPT blade C/X use?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to laugh.
Speaking as a journalist of 30 years standing, and a former Deputy News Editor of the above-mentioned London Evening Standard, I have to say the situation is even worse than you think.
Journalists know nothing of aviation except what they read in the papers. It wasn't until I learned to fly 20 years ago that I began to realise that virtually everything I had read (and written) about aviation was wrong. It just doesn't happen like that.
We're not especially thick or venal - just ignorant of the subject. If a journalist wants to know about something, he or she will call up the cuttings library, where every newspaper article ever published on that subject has been cut and stored. Thus are misapprehensions and myths perpetuated.
But the real problem is that journalists know nothing about ANY vaguely technical subject. Medicine. Science. Engineering. Social work. Pick your own topic. Not even the so-called 'specialists' have any real in-depth grasp of their subject. (When I did a quick survey in the late 1980s, not a single aviation correspondent in Fleet Street could fly a plane).
And then we come to topics like politics, international relations, and sport, which are not only poorly understood by journalists but are deliberately coloured and slanted by the agendas and the prejudices of the writers.
And like it or not, that's where most of us end up getting our information. While we can see that the media gives an impossibly distorted view of aviation, we have a charitable disposition to believe what we read on other subjects.
Still, it paid for my helicopter. Caveat emptor.
Speaking as a journalist of 30 years standing, and a former Deputy News Editor of the above-mentioned London Evening Standard, I have to say the situation is even worse than you think.
Journalists know nothing of aviation except what they read in the papers. It wasn't until I learned to fly 20 years ago that I began to realise that virtually everything I had read (and written) about aviation was wrong. It just doesn't happen like that.
We're not especially thick or venal - just ignorant of the subject. If a journalist wants to know about something, he or she will call up the cuttings library, where every newspaper article ever published on that subject has been cut and stored. Thus are misapprehensions and myths perpetuated.
But the real problem is that journalists know nothing about ANY vaguely technical subject. Medicine. Science. Engineering. Social work. Pick your own topic. Not even the so-called 'specialists' have any real in-depth grasp of their subject. (When I did a quick survey in the late 1980s, not a single aviation correspondent in Fleet Street could fly a plane).
And then we come to topics like politics, international relations, and sport, which are not only poorly understood by journalists but are deliberately coloured and slanted by the agendas and the prejudices of the writers.
And like it or not, that's where most of us end up getting our information. While we can see that the media gives an impossibly distorted view of aviation, we have a charitable disposition to believe what we read on other subjects.
Still, it paid for my helicopter. Caveat emptor.
"what is wrong with CX maintenance? 2 IFES in 8 days"
Bad Luck, Sods Law.
How do you know that it was a maintenance related problem? Could have been faulty manufacturing.
When was their last IFES prior to 8 days a go? How does that compare with other operators based on the amount of aircraft in the fleet?
Bad Luck, Sods Law.
How do you know that it was a maintenance related problem? Could have been faulty manufacturing.
When was their last IFES prior to 8 days a go? How does that compare with other operators based on the amount of aircraft in the fleet?
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Pat Malone: Speaking as a journalist of 30 years standing, and a former Deputy News Editor of the above-mentioned London Evening Standard, I have to say the situation is even worse than you think.
Journalists know nothing of aviation except what they read in the papers.
Journalists know nothing of aviation except what they read in the papers.
Couldn't resist, sorry!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always suspected that the reason why Journalists get things wrong so often is that most guys in the Aviation world refuse to speak to them, let alone tell them anything that might turn out to be controversial ......
I read a Times report from a link provided on the Halifax incident thread ....... worth reading for the questions it raises in a number of areas, and as an example of Aviation Journalism that I find demonstrates a depth of understanding of the subject ....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...365857,00.html
I read a Times report from a link provided on the Halifax incident thread ....... worth reading for the questions it raises in a number of areas, and as an example of Aviation Journalism that I find demonstrates a depth of understanding of the subject ....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...365857,00.html
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having now had a chance to but the Evening Standard and read the article in full myself, I have to wonder if I was on the same flight as Dr Singh.
I can't comment on the accuracy of the 20ft ball of flame, as I did not see it, but certainly there was no panic or screaming, and I did not feel in peril from flames advancing down the wing!
The one thing I did notice was the slow measured tone of the captain during the PA in which he explained the problem. His voice didn't seemed to have changed in tone from the announcement he made when we were holding at LHR and he was explaining we were about 6 in the hold. Nice and calm and factual, very reassuring.
Whilst I cannot comment on the causes, the event in the air seemed like it was handled with nothing but professionalism.
I can't comment on the accuracy of the 20ft ball of flame, as I did not see it, but certainly there was no panic or screaming, and I did not feel in peril from flames advancing down the wing!
The one thing I did notice was the slow measured tone of the captain during the PA in which he explained the problem. His voice didn't seemed to have changed in tone from the announcement he made when we were holding at LHR and he was explaining we were about 6 in the hold. Nice and calm and factual, very reassuring.
Whilst I cannot comment on the causes, the event in the air seemed like it was handled with nothing but professionalism.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gweriniaeth Cymru
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one HP turbine blade departs company.
I wonder what standard of HPT blade C/X use?
in response to your question/comment, a quick bit of research has answered your question.
The CX fleet, and almost all of the worlds RB211 powered 744 a/c now have the 524HT engine installed. The 'T' stands for the Trent core, which RR shoe-horned into the existing engine about 4 years ago, to improve failing EGT performance and HPT blade failures of the non-T engine. This HP module comprising the HPC, Combustion section and HPT, came virtually unmodified from the Trent 700/800 programme. Which has had only 3 design changes in the HPT blade area, as the item is so damn good. When compared to the original 524H item, that couldn't last beyond 2,500 cycles witout failing spectacularly, as you may be remembering from past times.
1 modification was to improve efficiency of the blade, 1 to ease blade production process and 1 for shank sulphidation, that as yet hasn't caused a major failure on the 744 fleet. Sulphidation, for the uninitiated, is caused by the sulphur in Kerosene, which at a very narrow temperature range can cause corossion pitting. Everybody suffers it, P+W, GE, Allied Signal etc. Platinising is an effetcive protection, that is plating with platinum, in the affected area.
Hoping this answers your question.
Brgd's
Roller Fan
PS Is there any truth to the rumour that the enigne actually continued to run after the event? Which could also rule out a turbine failure.
PS Is there any truth to the rumour that the enigne actually continued to run after the event? Which could also rule out a turbine failure