IberWorld engine fire/emergency landing (birdstrike??), Grand Canaria
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IberWorld engine fire/emergency landing (birdstrike??), Grand Canaria
Hi!
Just watched a Norwegian news channel. A IberWorld (A321??) bound for Oslo did return after departure from Grand Canaria with engine fire.
In interviw pax is saying they did see flames just after takeoff and then many high "bangs"..
I presume they had a birdstrike...anyone know more about this??
Pax interviewed was talking about taking boat to Spain and drive home
Link to story in norwegian paper: Charterfly måtte nødlande på Gran Canaria - VG Nett om Luftfart
Regards
FinalVectors
Norway
Just watched a Norwegian news channel. A IberWorld (A321??) bound for Oslo did return after departure from Grand Canaria with engine fire.
In interviw pax is saying they did see flames just after takeoff and then many high "bangs"..
I presume they had a birdstrike...anyone know more about this??
Pax interviewed was talking about taking boat to Spain and drive home
Link to story in norwegian paper: Charterfly måtte nødlande på Gran Canaria - VG Nett om Luftfart
Regards
FinalVectors
Norway
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old, same old
Press around here reports that, for unknown reasons, the pilots of the Iberworld A320 got a fire alert in one engine a few minutes after takeoff off. They turned around and landed w/o further difficulty after declaring an emergency. It was a charter flight leaving early morning from Gran Canaria to Oslo. Took off at 8:05, landed at 8:15
Company sent out already most of the 180 passangers on a rented Air Europa at 13:05, except a handful hysterical ones that decided to stay in the island and two that requested being hospitalized on a panic attack.
Some passangers declare having seen some passangers crying, flames on the affected engine and loud "bang" noises coming from it.
Investigation as to the cause of the engine fire on-going. No clear reason yet.
Otherwise, a non-event.
Company sent out already most of the 180 passangers on a rented Air Europa at 13:05, except a handful hysterical ones that decided to stay in the island and two that requested being hospitalized on a panic attack.
Some passangers declare having seen some passangers crying, flames on the affected engine and loud "bang" noises coming from it.
Investigation as to the cause of the engine fire on-going. No clear reason yet.
Otherwise, a non-event.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to norwegian media, passengers reported that the cabincrew were holding hands and crying.
Some of the passengers also said the would have rented a car to drive home if the replacement AC was an Airbus.
If this was a birdstrike (several bangs and fireballs from one of the engines), I don't think Airbus is responsible. :-P
Dramatic air-incidents obviously gives better ratings/sales. (Or maybe the infamous train-lobby is behind the media hysteria)
EDIT: just after posting the reply the bottom ad said "Cheap plane tickets to Gran Canaria"... No wonder, it's probably with the new IberWorld A320!
Some of the passengers also said the would have rented a car to drive home if the replacement AC was an Airbus.
If this was a birdstrike (several bangs and fireballs from one of the engines), I don't think Airbus is responsible. :-P
Dramatic air-incidents obviously gives better ratings/sales. (Or maybe the infamous train-lobby is behind the media hysteria)
EDIT: just after posting the reply the bottom ad said "Cheap plane tickets to Gran Canaria"... No wonder, it's probably with the new IberWorld A320!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The official AENA report remains the same. Iberworld (Carlyle Group) Flight IND 6201 A320-200 from Gran Canaria to Oslo took off normally at 8:05. Minutes later, pilots requested to turn around and land on an emergency due to fire alert in one engine. Landed "normally" at 8:15 with the engine turned off and fire extinguished. Emergency services were activated, but their action was unnecessary, as there was no need for particularly urgent evacuation or further signs of fire.
16 passangers, out of 189 PAX+Crew, voluntarely refused to take the sustitution flight the company chartered from Air Europa and that took off to the original destination a few hours later (scheduled for 12:30, departed 13:05). They were offered an overnight stay in the island.
Several passengers phoned-in Norwegian media taking about people crying on board, with flames and loud noises from the malfunctioning engine (thumping etc consistant with object ingestion, parts breakage or other malfunctions, but NOT, i.e. a large explosion, nor uncontained particle ejections, etc).
Understandably, some passengers suffered panic/hysteria attacks in wake of the recent Air France crash.
Cause of the (presumed) fire still under investigation, which is kind of slow since investigators and extra personnel would have to be flown in from >2.5h away. No public announcements on their side.
The company press report: "Crew proceeded to return to the airport of origin a few minutes after take off due to a technical problem on one of the engines".
Airplane remains parked in the airport, with no visible damage from the outside.
16 passangers, out of 189 PAX+Crew, voluntarely refused to take the sustitution flight the company chartered from Air Europa and that took off to the original destination a few hours later (scheduled for 12:30, departed 13:05). They were offered an overnight stay in the island.
Several passengers phoned-in Norwegian media taking about people crying on board, with flames and loud noises from the malfunctioning engine (thumping etc consistant with object ingestion, parts breakage or other malfunctions, but NOT, i.e. a large explosion, nor uncontained particle ejections, etc).
Understandably, some passengers suffered panic/hysteria attacks in wake of the recent Air France crash.
Cause of the (presumed) fire still under investigation, which is kind of slow since investigators and extra personnel would have to be flown in from >2.5h away. No public announcements on their side.
The company press report: "Crew proceeded to return to the airport of origin a few minutes after take off due to a technical problem on one of the engines".
Airplane remains parked in the airport, with no visible damage from the outside.
I was on the plane!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh please the drama... not watering down the fright it might have induced but... Ving (tour charter that leased IberWorld) now reports "too much fuel fed to engines which cause popping of flames".
That is all. Now, if this made plane go up and down Hege... then...
Back to lurking.
That is all. Now, if this made plane go up and down Hege... then...
Back to lurking.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South pole
Age: 99
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there more to this?
I am sure that there is no doubt that this flight was safe all the way, if pilots here would have started digging for something more. And of course a single engine fire/flameout/fault/whatever is not going to bring down a plane which can return in a few minutes.
However, something seems to have happened psychologically. There is a report in papers here in Norway today that at least one passenger entered into shock, and was denied flying back by a doctor.
Again, it is claimed that the FAs were crying, and whatever is the facts about that it seems that there was genuine panic & terror in the cabin.
I can understand that you pilots donŽt want to feed this thread as it was not a big thing in matters of flying & safety, but is it not worthwhile to look into the crowd management here? What if there had been a rush or commotion, it could take an ugly turn even though the aircraft never was in any danger.
I am not saying that I believe the quotes that the FAs were losing it, but nevertheless passengers seems to have got it that way - and that is not the norm with incidents like this, is it?
I think that perhaps two extra factors might be at play here:
1 - several passengers have certainly noted that they were flying Airbus, and had an irrational but genuine, probably hidden, fear because of that.
2 - perhaps the engine fire was not of a type that the FAs have been briefed/trained for? I donŽt know what they are taught, but if there was a fuel overflow that lead to 10 meter long flames - then they might have felt that this really was something sinister... And we people are really good at seeing the fear in others, even though they try to hide it...
My interest in this comes from always having a keen interest in how people in general function, and also as groups. I have had jobs where management of groups/crows/passengers has been key, and has also had a few interesting experiences in that matter.
What do you say - should an incident as this be handled better next time, after learning something about this one?
However, something seems to have happened psychologically. There is a report in papers here in Norway today that at least one passenger entered into shock, and was denied flying back by a doctor.
Again, it is claimed that the FAs were crying, and whatever is the facts about that it seems that there was genuine panic & terror in the cabin.
I can understand that you pilots donŽt want to feed this thread as it was not a big thing in matters of flying & safety, but is it not worthwhile to look into the crowd management here? What if there had been a rush or commotion, it could take an ugly turn even though the aircraft never was in any danger.
I am not saying that I believe the quotes that the FAs were losing it, but nevertheless passengers seems to have got it that way - and that is not the norm with incidents like this, is it?
I think that perhaps two extra factors might be at play here:
1 - several passengers have certainly noted that they were flying Airbus, and had an irrational but genuine, probably hidden, fear because of that.
2 - perhaps the engine fire was not of a type that the FAs have been briefed/trained for? I donŽt know what they are taught, but if there was a fuel overflow that lead to 10 meter long flames - then they might have felt that this really was something sinister... And we people are really good at seeing the fear in others, even though they try to hide it...
My interest in this comes from always having a keen interest in how people in general function, and also as groups. I have had jobs where management of groups/crows/passengers has been key, and has also had a few interesting experiences in that matter.
What do you say - should an incident as this be handled better next time, after learning something about this one?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my humble (non-expert) opinion: yes.
There seems to be a "problem" that makes things in case of some malfunctions harder than necessary. Be it an APU failure during engine start while taxiing that leaves the whole airplane in absolute darkness or a (relatively minor) engine malfunction that produces spectacular flames or noises, the problem is this:
Most PAX don't know what's going on and most pilots are too busy dealing with the consecuences to properly address them.
This complicates things. Some PAX may demand to exit the (in their mind, broken and unsafe) plane, further delaying the flight etc.
I think in these cases, airliners should have a list of "replies" to give out by Flight Attendants that pilots should order them to read over PA (i.e. pilots to FA's: read out malfunction announcement 2B).
These announcements should be meant to calm people down in events of failures/turbulence/whatever that "feel" spectacularly dangerous but actually are "reasonably common" and usually fairly harmless.
Something in the terms of: "L&G, because of a malfunction on a single engine, it may be producing noises, flames or vibrations which is not unnusual in these circunstances. Please remain calm and await further messages in case the pilot decides to turn around and land .... There is no danger, etc, etc"
But if FA don't know what's going on, PAX (obviously) don't know what's going on, and pilots are too busy trying to circunvent the problem and make it on schedule ASAP to waste time on "lengthy announcements" ... well, something fails here.
5 minutes of silence while you're in fear, feeling the airplane is in true danger can be too much to handle for some people. And unnecessary, since the problem can actually be a minor one when properly explained. And pilots don't have time to deal with proper "crowd control" when they are running a failure checklist and perhaps computing an unschedule landing plan.
YouTube - HOW NOT TO START AN ENGINE
There seems to be a "problem" that makes things in case of some malfunctions harder than necessary. Be it an APU failure during engine start while taxiing that leaves the whole airplane in absolute darkness or a (relatively minor) engine malfunction that produces spectacular flames or noises, the problem is this:
Most PAX don't know what's going on and most pilots are too busy dealing with the consecuences to properly address them.
This complicates things. Some PAX may demand to exit the (in their mind, broken and unsafe) plane, further delaying the flight etc.
I think in these cases, airliners should have a list of "replies" to give out by Flight Attendants that pilots should order them to read over PA (i.e. pilots to FA's: read out malfunction announcement 2B).
These announcements should be meant to calm people down in events of failures/turbulence/whatever that "feel" spectacularly dangerous but actually are "reasonably common" and usually fairly harmless.
Something in the terms of: "L&G, because of a malfunction on a single engine, it may be producing noises, flames or vibrations which is not unnusual in these circunstances. Please remain calm and await further messages in case the pilot decides to turn around and land .... There is no danger, etc, etc"
But if FA don't know what's going on, PAX (obviously) don't know what's going on, and pilots are too busy trying to circunvent the problem and make it on schedule ASAP to waste time on "lengthy announcements" ... well, something fails here.
5 minutes of silence while you're in fear, feeling the airplane is in true danger can be too much to handle for some people. And unnecessary, since the problem can actually be a minor one when properly explained. And pilots don't have time to deal with proper "crowd control" when they are running a failure checklist and perhaps computing an unschedule landing plan.
YouTube - HOW NOT TO START AN ENGINE
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iberworld press release:
"in no moment was there (technically) a fire in the engine" ....
"the origin of the problem was in the hydromechanic fuel feed system that was miss-regulated and introduced an overly enriched mix into the combustion chambers, which produced a small flaming episode" ...
"in no moment was any risk to the airplane or the passengers" .... "security protocols were followed" ....
"airplane was brand new, just a few months old" ....
"the pilot detected soon after takeoff an unusual engine behaviour on the left engine of the aircraft" ....
"even though parameters indicators were within normal ranges, they decided to turn around and land" ...
"the landing ocurred normally 15 minutes after takeoff" ...
"the company rented out another flight which departed a few hours later with 163 out of the original 178 passengers" ... "15 of them decided to stay" ...
"After the corresponding revision and maintenance procedures, the engine was restored to perfect condition and the aircraft is operative again" ...
"in no moment was there (technically) a fire in the engine" ....
"the origin of the problem was in the hydromechanic fuel feed system that was miss-regulated and introduced an overly enriched mix into the combustion chambers, which produced a small flaming episode" ...
"in no moment was any risk to the airplane or the passengers" .... "security protocols were followed" ....
"airplane was brand new, just a few months old" ....
"the pilot detected soon after takeoff an unusual engine behaviour on the left engine of the aircraft" ....
"even though parameters indicators were within normal ranges, they decided to turn around and land" ...
"the landing ocurred normally 15 minutes after takeoff" ...
"the company rented out another flight which departed a few hours later with 163 out of the original 178 passengers" ... "15 of them decided to stay" ...
"After the corresponding revision and maintenance procedures, the engine was restored to perfect condition and the aircraft is operative again" ...
Last edited by justme69; 12th Jun 2009 at 11:40.
Is it now reality that just under 10 percent of passengers on ANY Airbus are concerned enough to go into shock if the plane "goes up and down"??
I'm surprised as I always thought the Norwegians were a tough bunch, but guess that's no longer the case.
I don't recall such fuss over Boeing airliners and their problems. For Gawd's sake, people, get a grip, look at the statistics for aviation safety. It doesn't come any better than this!
PS: Has anyone been able to understand the sardirzewar post? Doesn't that argue for a 24 hour delay before first post on new sign-ups?
I'm surprised as I always thought the Norwegians were a tough bunch, but guess that's no longer the case.
I don't recall such fuss over Boeing airliners and their problems. For Gawd's sake, people, get a grip, look at the statistics for aviation safety. It doesn't come any better than this!
PS: Has anyone been able to understand the sardirzewar post? Doesn't that argue for a 24 hour delay before first post on new sign-ups?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South pole
Age: 99
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That video of a start-up (its at Gardermoen, is it not?) was really something! I guess something like that is enough to make those 10% of passengers to go barking mad in an instant...
I guess we used to be tough, but its been a quick way downhill. I remember being ferried as a conscript in Hercules up to the north, with unscheduled and unannounced stops - just going down in the middle of nowhere. Hitting turbulence that lifted us up half a meter, and things like that. Nobody even seemed to notice a thing, today would have needed a crisis team at destination!
Flying a lot of SAS and Braathens some years ago, my main impressions of FAs used to be that they were really tough and professional, and not pushed about by anything. That kind of faded when the guy next to me at a Ryanair flight went into a shock, probably from being dehydrated, overworked and then climbing to cabin height. The FAs did not know what to do!!! So I had to deal with him myself, and actually managed to keep contact with him and get him to snap out of it...
I guess that the combination of people loosing it more easily and the professionalism of some FAs will lead to more of this in the future. Is there any way of countering this?
I myself have always had a keen interest in technology, and came very close to choosing a career as a pilot years ago. Still, every time I learn more about flying, it takes away a chunk of that irrational fear that is really natural for the body & uneducated mind. So I guess actually showing examples like that start-up, and explaining why it is totally harmless...
I guess we used to be tough, but its been a quick way downhill. I remember being ferried as a conscript in Hercules up to the north, with unscheduled and unannounced stops - just going down in the middle of nowhere. Hitting turbulence that lifted us up half a meter, and things like that. Nobody even seemed to notice a thing, today would have needed a crisis team at destination!
Flying a lot of SAS and Braathens some years ago, my main impressions of FAs used to be that they were really tough and professional, and not pushed about by anything. That kind of faded when the guy next to me at a Ryanair flight went into a shock, probably from being dehydrated, overworked and then climbing to cabin height. The FAs did not know what to do!!! So I had to deal with him myself, and actually managed to keep contact with him and get him to snap out of it...
I guess that the combination of people loosing it more easily and the professionalism of some FAs will lead to more of this in the future. Is there any way of countering this?
I myself have always had a keen interest in technology, and came very close to choosing a career as a pilot years ago. Still, every time I learn more about flying, it takes away a chunk of that irrational fear that is really natural for the body & uneducated mind. So I guess actually showing examples like that start-up, and explaining why it is totally harmless...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, it is claimed that the FAs were crying, and whatever is the facts about that it seems that there was genuine panic & terror in the cabin.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers most don't know about "aviate, navigate, communicate" and panic/get furious if they are not informed of what's happening. I guess it's human to want to know what's going on when you're not in control.
I know, from personal experience, that a lot of the charter-pilots going up north are not that fluent in non-aviation-standard english. And I guess it's harder for non native english speaking people to understand bad english with a foreign accent. Maybe the pilot on IWD did explain to the passengers whats going on, but nobody could understand what it meant. This is just speculations.
I know, from personal experience, that a lot of the charter-pilots going up north are not that fluent in non-aviation-standard english. And I guess it's harder for non native english speaking people to understand bad english with a foreign accent. Maybe the pilot on IWD did explain to the passengers whats going on, but nobody could understand what it meant. This is just speculations.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its not unknown for cabin crew to panic, this is one of my favourites ...
BBC NEWS | UK | Probe into 'panicking stewardess'
BBC NEWS | UK | Probe into 'panicking stewardess'
its not unknown for cabin crew to panic, this is one of my favourites
Much more common for untrained passengers and hopefully pretty damn rare for the crew flying the aircraft (aviate-navigate-communicate will focus your mind)).
Hopefully when one of the cabin crew cops it, a more calming influence will emerger from another cabin staff member. I can't be surprised by an occasional FA showing panic and certainly not the passengers, but somewhere there needs to be the shout downs from those with their wits still about them.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: germany
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love all the speculation! I was there (LPA) and saw the aircraft take off.
There were only 2 (two) loud bangs consistent with a compressor stall, and there where no external flames after the 2 bangs. I was on the ramp, and heared the bangs when the aircraft was at approx. 400 feet. They left the gear down and flew a visual return to LPA. So all a lot less dramatic than being said in the press!!
There were only 2 (two) loud bangs consistent with a compressor stall, and there where no external flames after the 2 bangs. I was on the ramp, and heared the bangs when the aircraft was at approx. 400 feet. They left the gear down and flew a visual return to LPA. So all a lot less dramatic than being said in the press!!