Incident at Heathrow
If it had just had maintenance on engine(s), verification checks are required by separate certifiers. I've seen cowlings also blown open by fire extinguishers too.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: near BHX
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it turns out that it's first flight of the day and a similar cowling issue on each side, one is reminded of G-OBMM, February 1995.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/689.pdf
Edit to add: not in terms of being a boroscope, just in terms of similar work being done on both sides in the same session, and a simple mistake therefore being replicated on both sides.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/689.pdf
Edit to add: not in terms of being a boroscope, just in terms of similar work being done on both sides in the same session, and a simple mistake therefore being replicated on both sides.
Last edited by xyzzy; 24th May 2013 at 09:31.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The passenger who tweeted the picture above, @TBoneGallagher has just been interviewed on the BBC.
Quick notes: 8-9 minutes into flight, there was a loud popping sound. Looked to left window, left side engine cover blown off. Apparently the same happened on the right at the same sort of time.
Captain came on intercom, said they were aware, both engines were functioning normally, they were running tests.
About five minutes after that, loud sound, right engine clearly on fire, flames, smoke visible from cabin.
Plane banked to right, no more severely than normal LHR stacking, flew back to LHR.
The flight was no less smooth than normal.
Cabin crew very professional.
Quick notes: 8-9 minutes into flight, there was a loud popping sound. Looked to left window, left side engine cover blown off. Apparently the same happened on the right at the same sort of time.
Captain came on intercom, said they were aware, both engines were functioning normally, they were running tests.
About five minutes after that, loud sound, right engine clearly on fire, flames, smoke visible from cabin.
Plane banked to right, no more severely than normal LHR stacking, flew back to LHR.
The flight was no less smooth than normal.
Cabin crew very professional.
Quick notes: 8-9 minutes into flight, there was a loud popping sound. Looked to left window, left side engine cover blown off. Apparently the same happened on the right at the same sort of time.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cowling damage
The picture taken from inside by a passenger in flight of the No.1 engine right hand cowling shows only half a cowling, the honeycomb internal structure seems to be torn apart about halfway down.
The whole No.1 left hand cowling seems to be missing, what sort of bird did they hit? Must have been a big one!
The whole No.1 left hand cowling seems to be missing, what sort of bird did they hit? Must have been a big one!
It will be interestig to see what other damage has been caused to the airframe. If you google" A320 fan cowl separations" the reports often indicate some damage to the horizontal stab caused by the exiting cowl.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tracking info from planefinder.
Aircraft took off at about 0820, turned to the north east.
About 0825 just east of Potters Bar it turned east south east, altitude apparently c6,000.
Then turned west above Billericay at about 0830, apparently similar altitude.
And then back in to LHR, landing 0844.
Aircraft took off at about 0820, turned to the north east.
About 0825 just east of Potters Bar it turned east south east, altitude apparently c6,000.
Then turned west above Billericay at about 0830, apparently similar altitude.
And then back in to LHR, landing 0844.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of an engine failure and emergency landing when I was flying from Newcastle to Gatwick approx 20 years ago. I am a humble passenger: all you professionals on here do such a great job. Sorry if this interrupts your techy chat about today - do carry. I just wanted to pay my own tribute to a very skilled and professional body of men and women.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will only add why the media often mention the (lack of) terror incident thing.
When things are a bit more sensitive, some people would jump to conclusions wrongly (BA aircraft engine on fire, circs unknown, emerg. landing) so to immediately seek to rule out terror just "reassures" the more excitable members of Joe Public. And the cynic in me says the "not believed to be..." makes it easier to do a 180 degree turn should it even be thought to be terror orientated (writing generally, not about today's incident of course).
I hope that the senior executives of BA will be remembering to give the crew some deserved praise for making a successful emergency landing (even though it is "just doing their job" and something they've trained for). Some things still need recognition.
May I just ask a slightly diverting question more out of idle curiosity? After such an incident where there is absolutely no suggestion of it being due to the fault of the operating crew, would the crew still be "sidelined" from operational duty for a period of time to "get over" any stress/issues/etc or would they reasonably be rostered on to their next flights after the paperwork and meetings have been undertaken?
When things are a bit more sensitive, some people would jump to conclusions wrongly (BA aircraft engine on fire, circs unknown, emerg. landing) so to immediately seek to rule out terror just "reassures" the more excitable members of Joe Public. And the cynic in me says the "not believed to be..." makes it easier to do a 180 degree turn should it even be thought to be terror orientated (writing generally, not about today's incident of course).
I hope that the senior executives of BA will be remembering to give the crew some deserved praise for making a successful emergency landing (even though it is "just doing their job" and something they've trained for). Some things still need recognition.
May I just ask a slightly diverting question more out of idle curiosity? After such an incident where there is absolutely no suggestion of it being due to the fault of the operating crew, would the crew still be "sidelined" from operational duty for a period of time to "get over" any stress/issues/etc or would they reasonably be rostered on to their next flights after the paperwork and meetings have been undertaken?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the reported time elapsed after takeoff and altitude when passengers noticed problems, it makes a birdstrike far less likely because at this time of year geese (it would need to be that size to create the kind of problems) are v unlikely to be moving about at the height and in the formation needed to damage both engines. It is just possible, but if so it's really a very freak event.
If media reports from passengers are correct more concerning is if port engine was shut down and starboard was alight, it's a wonder they got back to R27 at all. I'm glad I don't live in Hounslow.
If media reports from passengers are correct more concerning is if port engine was shut down and starboard was alight, it's a wonder they got back to R27 at all. I'm glad I don't live in Hounslow.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Home and Away
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With both cowls missing from both engines, it looks like there's a strong possibilty that the fan cowls weren't latched properly/if at all.
I would think it highly unlikely that the engine fire bottles blew the cowls as only the right engine looked like it had a fire issue which 'could' have been caused by the cowl damaging fuel/oil lines as it depated that engine.
It will be interesting to see if the engines had maintenance caried out on them prior to this flight.
Obviously this is all purely speculation and my own views, but from the photos/footage I've seen it's an educated guess.
We'll have to wait for more information and investigtion to confirm or otherwise.
Either way, great job by the crew and all involved.
I would think it highly unlikely that the engine fire bottles blew the cowls as only the right engine looked like it had a fire issue which 'could' have been caused by the cowl damaging fuel/oil lines as it depated that engine.
It will be interesting to see if the engines had maintenance caried out on them prior to this flight.
Obviously this is all purely speculation and my own views, but from the photos/footage I've seen it's an educated guess.
We'll have to wait for more information and investigtion to confirm or otherwise.
Either way, great job by the crew and all involved.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With both cowls missing from both engines, it looks like there's a strong possibilty that the fan cowls weren't latched properly/if at all.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 42
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember my first line flight on an aircraft with IAE-V2500s, the training captain said to me on the walk around, 'always bend down and check the fan cowl latches are actually secured, they can easily be left unlatched and not noticed' or words to that effect.
I assume that is too simple an explanation.
I assume that is too simple an explanation.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just reading this report about a previous A319 engine cowl separation and there do seem to be a lot of similarities to what has been described for the BA incident -> Airline Accident: Incident - July 13, 2004 - Atlanta, Ga. | Investigative Reporting Workshop
Could a cowl separation damage other engine components causing a fire though?
Could a cowl separation damage other engine components causing a fire though?
