Incident at Heathrow
Short video clip from on board:
Onboard video shows plane emergency landing | Video | Reuters.com
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.
Onboard video shows plane emergency landing | Video | Reuters.com
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wagging Finger.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Post G-OBMM, the recommendation was NOT to perform critical maintenance on both engines of twins at the same time.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetPhotos.Net Photo » N951LF (CN: 460) airTran Airways (Ryan International Airlines) Airbus A320-232 by Tal Erickson
That was a V2500 engine with an unlocked cowl.
Untitled Page - 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.
That was a V2500 engine with an unlocked cowl.
Untitled Page - 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.
Last edited by WhyByFlier; 24th May 2013 at 13:37.
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feathers do not stay on top of an engine with airspeeds that high, so no, that`s not a feather on the left engine.
Strange things do happen.
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Damage to ancilliaries and surrounding components is a possibility though.
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.
Critical systems.
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.
Nightstop, are you sure about that?
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.
Replacing the oil caps after a Daily is critical & requires a duplicate inspection too...
Last edited by TURIN; 24th May 2013 at 14:17.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 away
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess familiarity
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
- 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
Last edited by demomonkey; 24th May 2013 at 14:16.