Incident at Heathrow
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .......
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 .......
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A00O0199
Last edited by WhyByFlier; 24th May 2013 at 17:51.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: m25
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ...)
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 ...)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some questions!!
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)
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)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damage caused by cowl loss
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.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: London
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Holiday Inn
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by SMD45; 24th May 2013 at 18:29.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to wonder about the commercial aspects!
( Yes I know ...Safety is our number one priority ...)
( Yes I know ...Safety is our number one priority ...)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Can someone also explain what problems the cowl release creates?
Someone mentioned earlier that missing cowl disrupts airflow and can lead to engine surge.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast
Age: 60
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Last edited by rog747; 24th May 2013 at 19:25. Reason: dupe posted n error
